The High Court declined to grant relief to the petitioner to participate in the Zilla Parishad meeting, relying on the full bench judgment in Anant H. Ulhalkar Vs. Election Commissioner which precluded consideration of participation prayers. The petition was disposed of with the committee directed to decide within three months.
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.
962.wp.53.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
962 WRIT PETITION NO.53 OF 2020
ATMARAM SUPDU KOLI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Senior Advocate Mr. Hon Ashwin V.
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. P.G. Borade
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE:03/01/2020
PER COURT :
1.We have heard Mr. Hon learned senior advocate for the
petitioner. The learned senior advocate submits that this Court under order
dated 27.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.10583/2019 directed the committee to
decide the proceedings within 3 months. Though three months have lapsed
committee has not decided the proceedings. The meeting is scheduled today
for election of the President and the Vice President of the Subject Committee
of the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. The respondents be directed to allow the
petitioner to participate in the meeting.
2.Under order dated 27.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.10583/2019,
we had observed that the prayer clauses regarding participation and
protection cannot be considered in view of the judgment of full Bench of this
Court and upheld by the Apex Court in case of Anant H. Ulhalkar Vs. Chief
1/2
962.wp.53.2020.odt
Election Commissionerreported in 2017 (1) Mh. L.J. 431.
3. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
4.The learned A.G.P. on instructions submits that the matter is
kept on 13.01.2020 for hearing before the Scrutiny Committee. The
petitioner may appear for hearing on said date before the Committee.
4.Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. The
Committee shall decide the proceedings within 3 months failing which we
would take action of contempt against the Committee.
( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
habeeb
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can participate in the Zilla Parishad committee meeting given the full bench judgment in Anant H. Ulhalkar Vs. Election Commissioner.
Whether to grant relief to the petitioner in view of the prior full bench judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anant H. Ulhalkar Vs. Election CommissionerRelied on¶1
Anant H. Ulhalkar Vs. Election Commissionerreported in 2017 (1) Mh. L.J. 431. · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Atmaram Supdu Koli
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
Mangesh S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court