A writ petition was filed challenging the petitioner's inability to contest elections. The bench held the matter infructuous as the election had already concluded and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Petition disposed as infructuous; no other relief granted.
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.
23.wp.398.2023.doc
Rajeshri Aher
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2023
Raju Kanhu Jadhav…Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.…Respondents
None for Petitioner.
Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, Chief Standing Counsel SCEA for Respondent
No.3.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP, for Respondent-State.
Mr. Sarang Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.4
CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED:20th April 2023
P.C.:
1The primary grievance in the Petition is that Petitioner was
not allowed to contest the elections. Ms.Solunke for Respondent Nos.1
and 2, Mr.Patil Bankar for Respondent No.3, and Mr.Sarang Aradhye for
Respondent No.4 state that the election is already over, and, therefore,
this Petition has become infructuous.
2 Petition therefore disposed, as infructuous.3 Should Petitioner be unhappy with the election results, hemay take such alternative remedy, as available, in accordance with law.
Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2023.04.24 16:09:53 +0530
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
1/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging non-contestation of elections is maintainable when the election is already concluded.
Raju Kanhu Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
K. R. Shrirm
Rajesh S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court