Disposed

Adv. Ashish S/O Nandkishor Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC12 Jan 2017PIL/112/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought directions for the constitution of a Nagar Panchayat and elections. After noting the previous dismissal of a related writ petition and a new notification, the court held that the prayer for constitution served its purpose and no further orders on elections were necessary at this stage. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The petition stood disposed; no further orders on elections were necessary, and the prayer for constitution of the Panchayat served its purpose.

Adv. Ashish S/O Nandkishor Jaiswal Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

12.1PIL.112.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 112 OF 2016. (Adv. Ashish s/o Nandkishor Jaiswal .vs. The State of Maharashtra & others)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for petitioner,

¶7

Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶8

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2017.

¶9

The issues involved in the present Public Interest Litigation are inter-connected with the issues in Writ Petition No. 6672/16. Vide reasoned judgment and order of the even date, we have dismissed the said petition. The issues involved in the present petition have also been considered in the said petition.

¶10

In so far as the prayer clause (a) is concerned, in view of subsequent development, i.e. the notification dated 25.10.2016 constituting Parshivni Nagar Panchayat, the petition has served its purpose.

¶11

In so far as the prayer clause (aa) is concerned, in view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 6672/16 today, no further orders are necessary.

¶12

In so far as the prayer clause (aa-1) is concerned, it is seeking a mandamus to the State Election Commission to hold the elections within a period of six months from the date of constitution of Parshioni Nagar Panchayat, i.e. 25.10.2016. As

¶13

12.1PIL.112.16

¶14

¶15

argued by Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No. 6672/16, the powers of the State Election Commission are almost analogous to the powers of the Election Commission of India as per Article 324 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for respondent no.3, submits that since the State Election Commission is almost a constitutional authority, there is no reason to doubt that it will act as per the mandate of the Constitution of India.

¶16

In that view of the matter, we do not find that any such directions are necessary at this stage.

¶17

With the above observations, the P.I.L. stands disposed of.

¶18

Judge

¶19

Judge

¶20

Adv. Ashish S/O Nandkishor Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv. Ashish S/O Nandkishor Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumars/O. Late Sh. Harish Chandra Jain Vs Insurance Rgulatory and Developmentauthority(Irda) and 9 Ors.

Gorakh Ananda Ghadge and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Gorakh Ananda Ghadge and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Budharam Ganpat Sarnobat Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal Vs the Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Suresh Bibhishan Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nilesh Subhashrao Raut and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Daryapur, Amravti and Another

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Pairshad, Amravati Another Vs Sahebrao Raysing Rathod and Others

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Amravati and Another Vs Rahul S/O. Motising Brahman and Others

Ravindra Madhukar Barde Principal Buldana Vs Shri. Radheshyam S/O Devkisan Chandak President Shri Sambhaji Raje Shikshan Sanstha and Others

Surendra @ Suryashekhar S/O. Moreshwar Khorgade (in Jail) Vs the Superintendent Central Prison Nagpur and Another

Yunus Patel Mohammed Shafi and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Yavatmal and Another