Dismissed

Gita Asaram Indalkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Jun 2016WP/3392/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench considered a writ petition challenging the validity of reservation policy for Panchayat posts made after elections. Finding no specific details in the petition and noting elections were completed over three years prior, the court dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. No costs awarded to any party.

Gita Asaram Indalkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

{1}

¶2

3392.13 wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3392 OF 2013

¶5

GITA ASARAM INDALKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.B.Kale

¶7

AGP for Respondents 1,3 and 4 : Mr. S.M. Ganachari. Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 6 : Mr. S.T. Shelke.

¶8

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 13TH JUNE , 2016.

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1] We have heard Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner. According to learned counsel, reservation policy has not been adhered to as per Section 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. Reservation has to be made by the State Election Commission in the prescribed manner before elections are held. Reservation for the post of Sarpanch and Upasarpanch has been made on 10^th April, 2013 i.e. much after the elections for the post of member of the Gram Panchanad had taken place. Same is not in consonance with the provisions of the statute. Even the reservation for the post of member of the Gram Panchayat has been done after the election programme has been declared. Same is impermissible.

¶11

2] We have also heard Mr. S.T. Shelke for State Election Commission and learned AGP for State.

¶12

3] Elections for the post of members of Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch and Upasarpanch has been held in the year 2013. In the petition, it is not pointed out as to how the reservations which were made were improper i.e. whether the reservation for the post of SC, ST, Women etc. were not proper.

¶13

{2}

¶14

3392.13 wp.odt

¶15

No such details are appearing in the petition. Petition is filed after the elections for the post of Members of the Gram Panchayat were already held and initially the petitioner had challenged the notice with regard to the election of the Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch only. Reservation for the post of Sarpanch and Upa sarpanch are scheduled in the letter dated 10^th April, 2013 ( Exhibit – I).

¶16

4] Elections have been held more than 3 years back. It is also not pointed as to how reservation for any category has not been properly provided for. Considering the above, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶17

[K.K. SONAWANE] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE JUDGE.

¶18

grt/-

Gita Asaram Indalkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gita Asaram Indalkar 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

Vaishali Nagsen Sarje Vs Nagsen Kondibarao Sarje

Gangadhar Vitthalrao Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhavrao Sambhaji Birajdar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Amines Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chhatrapati Shri Shahu Technical Institute and College Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sharad Vishnu Gokhale and Anr. Vs Brijlal Zumberlal Sarda and Ors.