The high court dismissed the writ petition challenging the ward formation, noting that election processes had commenced and key respondents were unserved, making interim interference unwarranted.
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.
1 wp 9863.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9863 OF 2016
Sunil Laxman Jadhav .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Ajinkya Kale, Advocate h/f Talekar and Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. Y. Mahajan, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. L. WADANE, JJ. DATE : 27TH OCTOBER, 2016.
PER COURT :
. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the objection raised by the petitioner to the formation of ward is not at all dealt in proper manner by respondent authorities. The ward formation is not in accordance with law. The area having backward settlement is divided. The area having S.C. population of ward No. 6 has got divided. Various other objections are raised, but same are not considered.
2 wp 9863.16
submits that, the process of election has commenced. The nomination papers are being filled in from 24th October, 2016 and the last date for filling in nomination papers is 29th October, 2016.
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Oct. 16
Sunil Laxman Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
K. L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
