Dismissed
Bayanabai Vaijnath Mainale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Bombay HCWP/117/2021
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
1 wp 117.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
974 WRIT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2021
BAYANABAI VAIJNATH MAINALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Venjane Tukaram M.
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2:
Mr. A. B. Kadethankar
...
CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE:08th JANUARY, 2021
PER COURT:
1. Mr. Venjane, learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner had filled
in the nomination form for the election as a
member of the Grampanchayat for the post reserved
for General (Women) category, however, the name of
the petitioner appears as a candidate from General
category, the same is illegal. In the nomination
form also, the petitioner has clearly stated that
the petitioner is contesting the election for the
post reserved for General (Women) category. The
learned Counsel further submits that even name of
2 wp 117.2021
the petitioner was shown in the list of candidates
to contest the election from General (Women)
category. However, in the final list of contesting
candidates the name of the petitioner is shown in
General category, the same is illegal. The learned
Counsel further submits that the petitioner was
guided by the notification under Rule 5(1) of the
Rules framed under Bombay Village Panchayat Act.
2.Mr. Kadethankar, the learned Counsel submits
that the petitioner had filled in the form for
Ward No. 3(C), “C” is meant for General category.
It is Ward No. 3(B) meant for General (Women)
category. The petitioner has filled in the form
for Ward No. 3(C). The declaration also states
that the petitioner has contesting from Ward No.
3(C). As such, the petitioner is rightly shown to
contest from General category.
3. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned Counsel for respective parties.
3 wp 117.2021
4.We find that, on the face of it the petition
does not merit consideration. The petitioner had
filled in the form from Ward No. 3(C). The
declaration given by the petitioner along with the
form also states that the petitioner is contesting
election from Ward No. 3(C). The receipt issued by
the Election Officer accepting the form also
states that the petitioner is contesting the
election from Ward No. 3(C) meant for General
category. The name of the petitioner is appearing
as a contesting candidate from Ward No. 3(C) meant
for General category. The information was already
furnished by the Returning Officer that Ward No.
3(A) is meant for S.C.(Women), Ward No. 3(B) is
meant for General (Women) and Ward No. 3(C) is
meant for General. The petitioner in no uncertain
words represented that the petitioner is
contesting from Ward 3(C).
5.In light of the above, no case for
interference.
4 wp 117.2021
6.Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is right to seek intervention on the ground that she was listed as a candidate from the General category instead of the reserved General (Women) category despite filing nominati
Whether the rejection of the writ petition on the face of the facts warrants judicial interference regarding the categorization of the petitioner in the final list of contesting candidates.
S. V. Gangapurwala
Shrikant D. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court