Bombay High Court
Mahesh S/O Dnyandeo Tawale vs District Deputy Registrar, ... on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 930.wp3687.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3687 OF 2022
Mahesh s/o Dnyandeo Tawale
Vs.
District Deputy Registrar, Sahakar Sadan, Nagpur and Ors.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3690 OF 2022
Mahesh s/o Dnyandeo Tawale
Vs.
District Deputy Registrar, Sahakar Sadan, Nagpur and Ors.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3691 OF 2022
Mahesh s/o Dnyandeo Tawale
Vs.
District Deputy Registrar, Sahakar Sadan, Nagpur and Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sandeep Marathe, Advocate for petitioner in all
petitions.
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for respondent State in WP
No.36872022.
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent/State in
WP No.3690/2022.
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for respondent/State in WP
No.3691/2022.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 05.07.2022.
In these writ petitions, the petitioners
have challenged impugned orders passed by the
respondent No.2 - Election Officer i.e. the Assistant
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Umred, whereby
Prity
2/3 930.wp3687.2022
objections taken by the petitioners for acceptance of
nomination papers have been rejected.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in these writ petitions, vehemently
submitted that the impugned orders are
unsustainable on the face of it on various grounds
and material in support of such contentions was
sought to be relied upon.
3. But, as per the Division Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of Pandurang Laxman
Kadam Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
2016 (6) Bom.C.R 75, in such cases concerning
challenge to acceptance or rejection of nomination
papers, which is an integral part of the process of
election, remedy available under Section 91 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is an
efficacious remedy for the aggrieved persons.
4. In the said judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court a specific contention raised on
behalf of similarly situated aggrieved persons that
the said remedy under Section 91 of the aforesaid
Act was inefficacious and that, if the challenge is
postponed, it would be rendered meaningless, has
been rejected and it has been held that the Writ
Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction in such
Prity
3/3 930.wp3687.2022
cases. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said judgment,
two exceptions have been noted wherein the entire
election process was found to have been vitiated,
because more than 97% of the voters were sought to
be disenfranchised and in such extreme
circumstances only, it was observed that the Writ
Court may consider exercising jurisdiction.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts
of the present cases do not make out such an
exceptional case and that therefore, the writ
petitions cannot be entertained.
6. In view of the above, the writ petitions
are dismissed.
7. Nonetheless, it is made clear that the
petitioners would be entitled to avail of the remedy
available to them under Section 91 of the aforesaid
Act.
8. This Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of
the petitioners.
JUDGE
Signed By:PRITY S GABHANE
Reason:
Location:
Signing Date:07.07.2022 18:15
Prity
