Disposed

Annasaheb Sukhdev Markad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Jan 2017WP/512/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the removal of specific voters from the list due to cheque dishonour. The court held that with elections scheduled for 22.01.2017, the election cannot be stalled, and stayed on voting rights cannot be granted, reserving the right to file an election petition if the petitioner loses.

What the court decided

AI extract

Annasaheb Sukhdev Markad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Election Law | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp 512.17.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.512 OF 2017

¶5

Annasaheb S/o Sukhdev Markad Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶8

Mr.K.B. Jadhav advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.R. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.1 and 3 Mr. S.K. Kadam advocate for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : V.M. KANADE &

¶10

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ

¶11

(Date : 20^th January, 2017.)

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

1 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶14

2 The grievance of the petitioner is that, respondent Nos.5 to 9 are defaulters and therefore are not entitled to vote in the election to be held on 22.1.2017. It is submitted that, initially during scrutiny, it was found that respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are not defaulters. However, subsequently, it turned out that the cheques issued by them were dishonored and therefore, the Assistant Registrar – Cooperative Societies gave opinion that since the cheques were dishonored and bank has given a memo stating therein that, dishonoring of cheques was on account of

¶15

{2}

¶16

wp 512.17.odt

¶17

insufficiency of funds in their accounts, their names are required to be removed from the final voters list.

¶18

3 On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No.2 that, it is a disputed question of facts, since after proper scrutiny, their names were included.

¶19

4 We are not sure as to whether observations made by the Assistant Registrar are correct or not. Since it is submitted that, the election programme is already declared and election is to take place on 22.1.2017, at this stage, election can neither be stalled, nor can order be passed granting stay to their rights to vote. In our view, there is much substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Since the elections are now scheduled to be held on 22.1.2017, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. We, however, reserve right of the petitioner to file election petition in the event he loses.

¶20

5 Petition is disposed of.

¶21

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) (V.M. KANADE, J)

¶22

vbd

Annasaheb Sukhdev Markad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Annasaheb Sukhdev Markad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Laxminarayan Zawar and Another Vs the Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Jalna and Others

Jyotiram @ Gunwant Janakraj Patil Vs the State Election Commission Maharashtra and Others

The Advocates Bar Association of Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal Aurangabad through Its President Vs Union Government of India through Its Chief Secretary New Delhi and Others

Subhash Phulchand Bainade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratap Rangnathrao Sawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tarabai Sandu Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others