Bombay High Court
Shri. Ashok S/O Ramaji Patre vs State Of Maharashtra Rural ... on 4 May, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp2603.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2603 OF 2016
Ashok s/o Ramaji Patre,
aged about 38 years,
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dhanla,
Tah. Mauda, Distt. Nagpur. .... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Rural Development & Water Resources,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Through its Minister/Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Narayan Meshram
aged major, Occ. Member,
r/o Dhanla, Tah. Mauda,
Distt. Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS.
Shri Bhojraj Dhandale Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Amit Balpande, AGP, for respondents 1 & 2.
Shri M.I. Dhatrak Advocate for respondent no. 4.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 04.05.2016.
wp2603.16
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Balpande,
learned AGP for respondent no. 1 and 2 and Mr.Dhatrak, learned
counsel for respondent no. 4 who appear after waiving notice for the
respective respondents.
2. There is no need to issue notice to respondent no.3 as
the petition can be decided by considering the submissions of the
petitioner and the documents placed on record.
3.
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
4. By this petition, the only relief claimed by the petitioner
is issuance of direction to respondent no. 1 for deciding the appeal in a
time bound manner. Interim relief is also sought for granting stay to
the order of disqualification dated 04.3.2016 pending appeal before
respondent no. 1. Further interim relief is sought for staying the
elections being held for the post of Sarpanch as well as Member of the
Gram Panchayat Dhanla, Tq. Mouda, District Nagpur.
5. Sofar as the prayer for directing the respondent no. 1 to
decide the appeal in a time bound manner is concerned, I must say,
such a request first would have to be made before respondent no. 1
and the petitioner can approach this Court only if such request is not
properly considered by the respondent no. 1.
6. As regards the interim relief for staying the order of
wp2603.16
disqualification, I do not think that same can be granted because
appeal is already pending. Besides the election process has already
commenced and it would now culminate by holding of the elections
very shortly. Therefore, I find no substance in this petition.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner insists
upon grant of stay to the election. However, in view of settled law, stay
to the election cannot be granted as the election process has already
commenced and now it has reached almost a final stage. The copy of
the order vacating interim order passed by respondent no. 1 is also not
placed on record, although it is stated that no specific order in that
behalf was passed and whatever order was there, that was in the
nature of communication dated 01.4.2016 signed by the Section
Officer. However, there are no pleadings in this regard in the petition.
Therefore, cognizance of the grievance sought to be raised by the
petitioner cannot be taken. The remedy of filing of election petition is
also available to the petitioner. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Rule
is discharged. No order as to cost.
JUDGE
/TA/
