Petition challenging an election result was rejected as devoid of substance. The court held no interference under Article 226 was called for since petitioner did not avail available legal remedies.
Petition stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp9370.16.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9370 OF 2016
Shridhar s/o Vasudeo Choure .. PETITIONER
VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.G. Munde, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & P. R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2016.
PER COURT :
It was open for the petitioner to avail of the remedies available in law for challenging the result of the election or the whole procedure. However, petitioner did not raise any challenge as provided under law. In exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the petition. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected.
( P. R. BORA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
1 issue framed by the court
Where the petitioner has not exhaust legal remedies for challenging an election result, whether extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is called for.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shridhar s/o Vasudeo Choure
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
P. R. BORA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
