Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to expeditiously decide an election petition filed in March 2017. The Court held that the statutory six-month period for the District Judge had not yet expired, so no direction was issued at this stage.
none
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.
05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 WRIT PETITION NO. 4137 OF 2017
SAVITA JYOTIRAM KORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Salunke V. D.
AGP for Respondents State: Mr. S. B. Joshi
CORAM: R. M. BORDE
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE:29th March, 2017
ORDER:
1. Election petition has been presented by the
petitioner in the month of March, 2017 and the
petitioner is seeking direction to the lower court to
expeditiously decide the election petition.
2. Mandate of law provides six months period for
the District Judge to decide election petition and the
said period is yet to expire. The Court dealing with
the election petition is required to abide by the
mandate of law. In the event of occurrence of any
cause, it would be open for the petitioner to avail of
the remedy and seek appropriate directions. Atthis
stage, no direction needs to be issued.
3. Keeping the option of the petitioner open to
approach this Court in the event of occurrence of
cause, writ petition stands disposed of.
JPC
1/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether direction to expeditiously decide an election petition within the pristine six-month period is warranted when the time-limit has not yet expired.
Savita Jyotiram Kore
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. Borde
K. L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court