Shivaji Dattatraya Patil vs The District Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3710 Bom

                                                                     9-wp706-21.doc

vai

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         WRIT PETITION NO.706 OF 2021


      Shivaji D. Patil                                          ...Petitioner
                 V/s.
      The District Co-op. Election Officer & Ors.               ...Respondents


      Mr.Kishor Patil i/b Mr.Vrishali R. Raje for the Petitioner.

      Mr.A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondents Nos.2 and 7 - State.

      Mr.Deelip Patil Bankar - CSC of SECA for the Respondent Nos.1
      and 3.

      Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondent No.5.

      Mr.Sandesh D. Patil with Mr.Samir Patil i/b Mr.P.S. Gole for the
      Respondent No.6.

                                 CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                         V.G. BISHT, JJ.

DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2021.

P.C. :-

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12 th February,

2021 passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the objection filed by

the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the election program has been

already announced. Mr.Sandesh Patil, learned counsel for the

respondent no.6 invited our attention to an order dated 23rd February,

2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.4028 of 2021

9-wp706-21.doc

in case of Mr.Jagannath Ramchandra Chaudhari vs. Mr.Sunil

Vitthal Patil & Ors. and would submit that in an identical situation,

this Court has already dismissed the petition after adverting to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shri Sant

Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha

Utpadak Sanstha & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2002

(1) Mh.L.J.659. He submits that the remedy of the petitioner if any

would be to file the election petition.

2. Mr.Kishor Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner could not

distinguish the said order passed by this Court. In our view, the said

order passed by this Court applies to the facts of this case.

3. In view of the fact that the election program is already

announced, we are not inclined to interfere with the election program.

The remedy of the petitioner would be by way of filling election

petition.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of

in aforesaid terms on the ground of maintainability.

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. It is made clear that his Court has not expressed any

views on the merits of the matter. All contentions of the parties are

kept open.

(V.G. BISHT, J.)                                    (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

     Vasant         Digitally signed by
                    Vasant A. Idhol       2/2
                    Date: 2021.02.26
     A. Idhol       17:57:40 +0530