Bombay High Court
Baburao Vithalrao Panchal And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-12158.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12158 OF 2016
1. Baburao s/o Vithalrao Panchal
Age 50 years, occup. Agrist.,
R/o AT post Italapur Deshmukh,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani
2. Dwarkabai w/o Satish @ Satyakumar
Age 40 years, occup. Agrist.
R/o Post Matkrhala,
Tq. Dist. Parbhani
ig .. Petitioner
versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Co-operation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Parbhani .. Respondents
--
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. S. K. Tambe, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 8th December, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel
for appearing parties finally.
2. It appears that the petitioners have been elected in the bye-
elections which were held in April, 2015, in respect of gram
2 WP-12158.16.doc
panchayat of village Matkarhala and have been since then
functioning as such. The term of the gram panchayat would come
to an end around November, 2017. In the circumstances, in the
normal course, their names ought to have occurred in voters' list
for elections to managing committee, Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Parbhani. However, their names were not included and
as such, they had approached respondent no.2 for inclusion of their
names in voters' list. However, respondent no. 2, referring rule 36
(15) of Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967,
declined the request under impugned communications dated
02-12-2016 and 03-12-2016 on the ground that application of the
petitioners had been received after expiry of last date for
submission of nomination and hence, petitioners are before this
court.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners points out a judgment dated
29-11-2016 delivered by honourable single judge in writ petition
no. 11810 of 2016 and submits that his case is squarely covered by
said judgment, submitting further that the facts in said case were
similar to the facts involved in the present case and observations in
the judgment have been rendered in the similar circumstances and
as such urges to allow writ petition. He particularly relies on
observations in paragraph no. 5 reading thus;
'' 5. The provisions discussed by this Court in aforesaid writ
petitions show that it was the duty of the authority to collect the
3 WP-12158.16.doc
names of the members of the Village Panchayat and include those
names in the voters list. As the names are not included, this Court
holds that list needs to be corrected and opportunity needs to be
given to the present petitioners to vote in the election. ''
4. Mr. Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of respondents, though purports to oppose, however, has
not been in a position to clearly come out of the observations in
cited case reproduced hereinbefore.
5. Having regard to the exigency and peculiar circumstances in
the present petition, it would be expedient and proper to follow the
observations reproduced hereinabove, making it clear that this
order would not have efficacy as a binding precedent.
6. Writ petition as such stands granted in terms of prayer
clause (B). Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition stands
accordingly disposed of.
7. Parties to act on authenticated copy of the order.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
JUDGE
pnd
