Disposed

Siddharam Rachapa Yelshetty and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2017WP/277/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Civil Appeal Jurisdiction, adjudicated a writ petition concerning the exclusion of petitioners from the provisional voters' list. The court treated impugned communications from respondent No.4 as withdrawn and directed the competent authority to consider the petitioners' objections on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications treated as withdrawn; direction to competent authority to reconsider petitioners' objections.

Siddharam Rachapa Yelshetty and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

YBG

¶2

¶3

prod-26-10-1-wp277-17

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.277 OF 2017

¶6

Siddharam Rachapa Yelshetty & Ors. .. Petitioners - Versus - State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Girish Godbole with Drupad Patil and Akshay Petkar and Sumit Kothari for petitioners

¶8

Mr. A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.G.Vagyani, GP with Ms. N.M.Mehra, AGP for State Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & PRAKASH DEU NAIK JJ. DATE : 11^th January 2017.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1] Leave to amend to correct designation of respondent No.4,

¶12

Deputy Registrar is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2] Heard parties through their Counsel. Feeling aggrieved by the communications dated 23^rd September 2016 (Exhibit “D”) sent by respondent No.4, petitioners have filed this petition.

¶13

3] The grievance of the petitioners is that though the names of petitioners are required to be included in the voters' list but the same have not been included in the provisional voters' list of petitioners. According to the petitioners, the reasons stated in the impugned communications dated 23^rd September 2016 are not sustainable.

¶14

YBG

¶15

¶16

prod-26-10-1-wp277-17

¶17

4] Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 submits that the said communications are not having any binding effect on the Collector – competent authority – while considering and deciding the objections to the provisional voters' list and while finalising the said list. He however, on instructions submits that in fact the said communications may be treated as withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid we treat the said communications dated 23^rd September 2016 addressed to the petitioners as withdrawn.

¶18

5] As agreed by learned Counsel for the parties, we dispose of this petition by directing the competent authority/ respondent No.3 to consider petitioner's objections to the provisional voters' list claiming their inclusion in the final list in accordance with law. Needless to state that the respondent No.3 shall not be influenced by the impugned communications dated 23^rd September 2016 issued by respondent No.4 which now stands withdrawn and shall decide the objections of the petitioners on merits, keeping in view the provisions of relevant Act and Rules.

¶19

6] Petition is disposed of accordingly. All contentions of both sides are kept open.

¶20

(PRAKASH DEU NAIK, J)

¶21

(SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J)

Siddharam Rachapa Yelshetty and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharam Rachapa Yelshetty and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

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

M.Rajan Nabiar and 12 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Kumari Kiran Sharanappa Tolnure Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 1, Solapur and Anr.

The Chief Executive Officer and Ors. Vs Sharad Yeshwant Varule and Ors.

Vikram M Katira Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

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

Shri Raosaheb Narayan Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary of Dept. of Co-Operation and Ors.