Quashed

Anil Hilal Kunwar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Feb 2016WP/1314/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad quashed an order by the District Deputy Registrar that struck off thousands of voters from the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee elections without a proper inquiry into individual objections or licences, directing a rehearing.

What did the court decide?

The orders striking off names of voters from Hamal and Traders Constituency lists are quashed. Petitioners directed to extend hearing to all voters and decide duly.

Anil Hilal Kunwar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp1314.16.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2016

¶5

Anil Hilal Kunwar age 55 years, occ. Hamal.

¶6

Ashok Pralhad Dhakad age 41 years, occ. Hamal.

¶7

Sanjay Parshuram Chavan age 52 years, occ. Hamal.

¶8

Dattu Kisan Jokhar age 45 years, occ. Hamal.

¶9

Suresh Bhagwan Javheri age 47 years, occ. Hamal.

¶10

Dagadu Sakharam Arnale age 40 years, occ. Hamal

¶11

Sanjay Shrirang Walunjkar age 40, occ. Hamal

¶12

8 Maruti Mahinath Walunjkar age 43, occ. Hamal

¶13

Rajendra Gorakh Patil age 49, occ. Hamal

¶14

Madhukar Pandurang Wani age 44, occ. Hamal. All r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur Dist. Dhule. .. PETITIONERS

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶17

The Director of Marketing Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶18

The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies,

wp1314.16.doc

Dhule, Dist. Dhule

The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶23

The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule Through its Secretary

¶24

Chande Danney Vishram age major, occ. Nil r/o Market Road, Ambedkar Chowk, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .. RESPONDENTS

¶25

Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶26

Mr. P.D. Bachate, advocate holding for Mr. G.D. Jain, advocate for respondent no. 5.

¶27

WITH

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO. 1321 OF 2016

¶29

Babulal s/o Bhika Mali age 55 years, occ. Business

¶30

Manoj s/o Ashokchand Jain Proprietor of M/s Sapna Trading Co. age 40 years, occ. Business

¶31

Dipak s/o Babulal Mahajan Proprietor of M/s Babulal Bhika Mali and Co.

¶32

Piyush s/o Nathulal Sharma Proprietor of Shiv Fruit Co. age 47 years, occ. Business

¶33

Anup s/o Subhashchandra Agrawal Partner of M/s B.H. Agro Pvt. Ltd.

wp1314.16.doc

occ. Business

Siddik Bafati Teli Proprietor of M/s Siddik Bafati age 40 years, occ. Business

¶38

Shri Amrishbhai Rasiklal Patel Partner of Aamoda Telbiya age 63, occ. Business All r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shripur, Dist. Dhule. .. PETITIONERS

¶39

VERSUS

¶40

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶41

The Director of Marketing Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶42

The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule. Dist. Dhule.

¶43

The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶44

The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. Through its Secretary

¶45

Chandrakant Damodhar Patil age major, occ. Nil r/o Shingave Taluka Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶46

Nathu Dhoman Patil age 60, occ. Nil r/o Shingave, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .. RESPONDENTS

¶47

Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, advocate for respondents 4, 5 and 8.

wp1314.16.doc

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 2016

¶52

1.	Abhijeet s/o Arvind Agrawal
	Prop. Arvind P. Agrawal age 40 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
2.	Ashish Kamalkishor Agrawal Prop. S.R. Age 45 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
3.	Jyoti Sanjay Agrawal Prop. Kanhaiyalal Bansilal, age 43 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
4.	Dilipkukmar Bansilal Agrawal Prop. Dilip Ind. Age 50 years, occ. Business, r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
5.	Nikhil Mahendra Agrawal prop. Shriram Ind. Age 25 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
6.	Meena Kailaschand Agrawal Prop. K.R. Age 42 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
7.	Mukesh Rameshchand Agrawal Prop. Gangeshwar age 30 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
8.	Rajesh Tarachand Agrawal Prop. Shubham Agro. Occ. Business
	r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur,

wp1314.16.doc

Dist. Dhule.

Shirish Santosh Agrawal prop. Ganesh Tr. Age 32 years, occ. Business, r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶57

Santosh Tekchand Agrawal Prop. Omshanti Tr. Comp. Age 59 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶58

Mahendra Lakhesing Girase Prop. Swami Trading age 46 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶59

Harshal Bhupendrasing Girase Prop. Ashirwad Trd. Age 28 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶60

Dilip Vasudeo Gupta age 50 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶61

Kishor Atmaram Gujar age 44 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶62

Rohidas Vanji Gujar age 75 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶63

Avinash Krishnadas Shah Prop. Radhe Trading age 42 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶64

Santosh Dhondu Chaudhari Prop. Nayan Trading, age 46 years, occ. Business

¶65

wp1314.16.doc

¶66

¶67

r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶68

khemchand Hiralal Jain age 50 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶69

Girish Bhagchand Jain age 43 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶70

Chunilal Hiralal Jain age 57 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶71

Yuvraj Girishchand Jain Prop. Laherchand Dhanji age major, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶72

Lalitkukmar Gulabchand Jain Prop Arihant Trd. Age 49 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶73

Vikrant Ramesh Jain Prop. Vikrant Brothers age 33 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶74

Vijay Gulabchand Jain Prop. Dhanna Trd. Age 55 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶75

Seemabai Rajendra Jain Prop. Sandesh Trd. Age 39 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶76

Mahamad Bafati Teli age 55 years, occ. Business

¶77

wp1314.16.doc

¶78

¶79

r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶80

1. Pratapsing Shankarsing Pardeshi age 70 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶81

1. Pratapsing Shankarsing Pardeshi Prop. Parihar Trd. Age 70 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶82

1. Laxman Pandi Patil Prop. Patil Trd. Age 75 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶83

1. Dnyaneshwar Yeshwant Patil Prop. Balweer Trd. Age 46 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶84

1. Kadar Mahamad Bagwan age 67 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶85

1. Mushtaq Phakira Bagwan age 43 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶86

1. Yunus Phakira Bagwan Prop. Bagwan Brothers age 40 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶87

1. Yusuf Phakira Bagwan Prop. Samer Udyog age 57 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶88

1. Namdeo Rama Marathe age 72 years, occ business

¶89

wp1314.16.doc

¶90

¶91

r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶92

Bhagwansing Bhimsing Rajput Prop. Ramdas Hi age 48 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶93

Mishrilal Ramchandra Rathi Prop. Balaji Trd. Age 60 years, occ. business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶94

Vijay Ratanlal Sharma Prop. R.B. Age 32 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶95

Padyutkumar Kunkumchand Shaha Prop. P.K. Shaha age 56 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶96

Bhupendrakumar Amrutlal shaha Prop Hema.Trd age 50 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶97

Satish Dagadulal Jain Prop. Wardhman Trd. Comp. Age 45 years, occ. Business r/o Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .. PETITIONERS

¶98

VERSUS

¶99

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶100

The Director of Marketing Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶101

The District Deputy Registrar,

¶102

wp1314.16.doc

¶103

¶104

Co-operative Societies, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

¶105

1. The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶106

The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule Through its Secretary

¶107

Chandrakant Damodhar Patil age major, occ. Nil r/o Shingave, Tq. Shirpur Dist. Dhule.

¶108

Nathu Dhoman Patil age 60 occ.nil r/o Shingave Taluka Shirpur Dist. Dhule. .. RESPONDENTS

¶109

Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶110

=====

¶111

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶112

A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 10^th FEBRUARY, 2016.

¶113

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)

¶114

Heard.

¶115

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶116

parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶117

Petitioners are objecting to the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule, on 27.01.2016 directing striking off names of 977 members from Tranders and Commission Agents Constituency and 599 names from the Hamal Constituency. As a result of

¶118

wp1314.16.doc

¶119

¶120

the impugned order, the whole voters list of the market committee so far as Traders and Commission Agents Constituency and Hamal Constituency is concerned, gets wiped off.

¶121

The District Deputy Registrar has acted upon the complaint allegedly tendered by respondents. The complaint, admittedly refers to lessor number of voters however, the District Deputy Registrar has proceeded to direct deletion of almost all the names included in the provisional voters list prepared for the purpose of elections to the market committee. So far as Hamal Constituency is concerned, it is pointed out that there are 599 voters enlisted in the provisional voters list whereas the objector has tendered objection in respect of inclusion of 316 voters. Notice that was published by the District Deputy Registrar inviting reply of the concerned voters on the objection tendered by the objector contains 106 names. The notice is published in the local newspaper on 22.01.2016 and the concerned voters were called upon to answer the objection on 27.01.2016. The District Deputy Registrar, on perusal of the record, without scrutinising the licence given to the respective voters, proceeded to direct striking off names of voters enlisted in the preliminary voters list. The matter in respect of Traders Constituency is also not different and the order suffers from same deficiencies as in the case of Hamal Constituency.

¶122

It is the contention of petitioners that the objection has been raised so far as Traders Constituency is concerned, by way of objection in respect of enlistment of 770 voters. We have perused the objection tendered by the

¶123

wp1314.16.doc

¶124

¶125

objector and, on reading the text, we are of the view that the objection is as vague as it could be. The objections tendered before the District Deputy Registrar do not prima facie appear to be in conformity with Rule 36(8) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967. Rule 36(8) reads thus :

¶126

36. Voters' list :

¶127

(8) Such claim or objection shall be made in writing and shall specify the constituency in question, the grounds on which the right of any person to be entered in the list is asserted or denied, the evidence which the claimant or objector intends to lead, the address of the claimant or objector, his number, if any, in the list [- - - - -] and in case of an objection, the number in the list of the person to whose entry objection is taken and the constituency in the list for which he is entered.

¶128

The objections acted upon by the District Deputy Registrar are not in conformity with sub-rule 8 as quoted above. Apart from this, as has been stated above, the District Deputy Registrar had called upon only 106 voters from Hamal Constituency whose names were published in the notice in the newspaper, to answer the objections whereas the officer has directed striking off names of all the voters enlisted in the voters list i.e. 599 voters. Similarly, in Traders Constituency, though the objection is vague as stated above, the names of all 977 voters are directed to be deleted although objection relates to 770 voters.

¶129

The order has been passed by the District Deputy Registrar without application of mind to the record of the case. It shall be the responsibility of

¶130

wp1314.16.doc

¶131

¶132

the District Deputy Registrar to look into the relevant provisions of the rules and, after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned against whom objection is raised, he shall have to proceed to take appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions of law. The impugned orders passed by the District Deputy Registrar directing striking off names of all the voters from Hamal and Traders Constituency are quashed and set aside. The District Deputy Registrar is directed to re-consider the matters, after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, including the voters whose names are sought to be deleted. The District Deputy Registrar shall take appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions of law, expeditiously. Rule made absolute in above terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶133

( A.I.S. CHEEMA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶134

dyb

Anil Hilal Kunwar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Hilal Kunwar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgamata Mahila Bachat Gat Bhivpur 2 Dist Jalna through Its President and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Vishal Intelligence Security Services through Its Proprietor Dinkar Namdeo Chaudhari Vs the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon through Its Vice Chancellor and Others

Pandurang Wanji Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babulal Bhika Mali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Narsimlu Mokmod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shweta Madhavrao Shingarwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others