This single-paragraph writ petition challenged the denial of election permission to a full-time employee. The Court held that Rule 23 only covers attending meetings, not contesting, and dismissed the petition as 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
905 WRIT PETITION NO. 341 OF 2017
SUBHASH PHULCHAND BAINADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V.R. Gore AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2:Mr. S. B. Joshi
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Date: January 20, 2017
PER COURT :-
2 Grievance of the petitioner is that, he has made request to respondent No.2 to permit him to contest election. However, his request was turned down on the ground that, there is no such provision in the Rules. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner invited our attention to Rule 23. He submits that in view of the said Rule, the respondent No.2 should have considered his request to permit him to contest the election.
3 We have perused Rule 23. Rule 23 speaks about seeking permission to attend political programme or meetings. It does not contemplate a full time employee contesting election. Rule 24 in turn defines ‘employee’ means full time employee. We, are therefore not inclined to accept the interpretation sought to be given to Rule 23 by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent that permission to contest election does not form part of Rule 23. Petition, therefore, is devoid of any substance. Petition is dismissed.
( SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J. ) ( V. M. KANADE, J. )
vbd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 23 of the relevant Rules permits a full-time employee to seek permission to contest an election.
Whether the petitioner, a full-time employee, could be allowed to contest the election under the said Rules.
SUBHASH PHULCHAND BAINADE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
V. M. KANADE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
