Disposed

Udhav Dattu Murathe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Aug 2018WP/9322/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged delays in passing stay orders regarding their disqualification. The Court noted an election was scheduled and declared the matter subjudiced before the Divisional Joint Registrar, refusing to pass orders on the merits at that stage. Writ petitions were disposed of without considering merits.

What did the court decide?

No orders passed on the election or stay matter; petitions disposed of reserving merit for later determination.

Udhav Dattu Murathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Election Law | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1) 915wp92162018 with connect wp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

915 WRIT PETITION NO. 9216 OF 2018

¶4

VIKAS PANDITRAO PATIL AND OTHERS..PETITIONERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶7

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9321 OF 2018
WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.9322 OF 2018

¶9

Mr. Dhananjay B. Thoke, Advocate for the Petitioner
in WP/9216/2018.

¶10

Mr. Ajit B. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner in
WP/9321/2018 and WP/9322/2018.

¶11

Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, AGP for RespondentState.

¶12

Mr. V. D. Salunke h/f Mr. Paresh B. Patil, Advocate
for the Respondent No.7.

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶14

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶15

 DATED : 09th AUGUST, 2018.

¶16

PER COURT:

¶17

1.Mr. Kale and Mr. Thoke, learned counsel
for the petitioners submit that the petitioners
have already filed an appeal and the same is
pending before the authority challenging their
disqualification. This Court had directed to
decide the stay petition within ten days. The
hearing is concluded on 06.08.2018, but as yet no
orders are passed. The same is being delayed only

¶18

(2) 915wp92162018 with connect wp

¶19

on the ground that the petitioners should not get
opportunity to assail the order, if the same is
passed against them and before that the meeting of
the Chairman be held. The meeting of the Chairman
is scheduled on 13.08.2018. Out of eighteen
Directors seven are disqualified. Without
conducting the election of the Director, the
election of the Chairman is being held. The
learned counsel submits that all these proceedings
are going on in political manner, so that the
petitioner should not get proper opportunity and
the election of Chairman be held behind their back.

¶20

2.We have heard the learned A.G.P. and Mr.
Salunke, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶21

3.This Court under order dated 31.07.2018 in
Writ Petition No.8701/2018 with other connected
Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners had
directed the Divisional Joint Registrar to decide
the application of the petitioner within ten days.
The Divisional Joint Registrar is bound by the
directions of this Court and he is required to
decide the application of the petitioner for stay
within the said period. It is submitted that the
arguments are also heard and concluded. The
Authority shall consider the gravity of the matter
and decide the application as directed by this
Court under order dated 31.07.2018 in Writ Petition
No.8701/2018 within the time stipulated therein.

¶22

(3) 915wp92162018 with connect wp

¶23

4.Considering the fact that the election of
Chairman is declared and scheduled, at this stage
we may not pass any orders with regard to the said
election. More particularly, when the matter is
subjudiced before the Divisional Joint Registrar
and directions are also given to him to pass
appropriate orders on the application of the
petitioners within ten days i.e. on or before the
10.08.2018.

¶24

5.It is made clear that we have not
considered the merits of the contentions in the
present writ petition, the same are open. Writ
Petitions accordingly disposed of.

¶25

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

Devendra/August18

Udhav Dattu Murathe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udhav Dattu Murathe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Dadabhau Anantrao Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Venkat Santram Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradeep Bhairavnath Shingare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwanath Venkati Bejgamwar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Nanded

Vasant Zipru Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrushti Nagorao Kawadewar through Guardian Anita Nagorao Kawadewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others