The petition challenging a reservation prescription filed after a delay of over two years was dismissed due to the lack of explanation for the inordinate delay, deeming it devoid of substance.
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.
wp10555.17
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10555 OF 2017
(Tupkar Ravikumar Dnyanoba Vs The State Election Commission
through its Commissioner Mumbai and others)
Office Notes,Office MemorandaCourt's or Judge's orders
of Coram,appearances, Court's
orders or directions andCORAM : R.M. BORDE &
Registrar's orders S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATED : 29.08.2017
Mr.Ramchandra S. Patil, Advocate for
the petitioner
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for
respondent/State
Mr.Shivaji T. Shelke, Advocate for
respondent No.1
.Theprescriptionof
reservation declared on 27.03.2015 is a
matter of challenge in the instant
petition presented after more than two
years. The delay and latches in
approaching the Court have not been
properly explained by the petitioner.
In view of above no interference is
caused in exercise of extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
2
wp10555.17
2.The petition being devoid of
substance stands disposed of.
[S.M. GAVHANE,J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
VishalK /wp10555.17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging the prescription of reservation should be allowed despite the inordinate delay of more than two years without explanation.
Tupkar Ravikumar Dnyanoba
The State Election Commission
R.M. BORDE
S.M. GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court