Vicki S/O Dilip Madavi vs The State Election Commission, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2999 Bom

                                   1             11.WP.1912-2023 JUDGMENT.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1912 OF 2023



         Shri Vicki S/o Dilip Madavi
         Aged about 24 years, Occ. Private,
         R/o. Naygaon, Tah. Babhulgaon,
         District Yavatmal.                          PETITIONER



            Versus


   1. The State Election Commission,
      Maharashtra, New Administrative
      Building, opposite Mantralaya, Madam
      Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Square,
      Mumbai-400032.


   2. The     Divisional     Commissioner,
      Amravati Division, Amravati.


   3. The Collector, Yavatmal.


   4. The Tahsildar, Babhulgaon,
      Distt. Yavatmal.                               RESPONDENTS


 -----------------------------------------------
 Mr. H.R. Dhumale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
 Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State.
 -----------------------------------------------



::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2023               ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2023 18:20:25 :::
                                         2              11.WP.1912-2023 JUDGMENT.odt




                               CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 27th MARCH, 2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel waives notice for the

respondent No.1 on merits.

4. Mr. Patil, learned AGP waives notice for the

respondent Nos. 2 to 4/State on merits.

5. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsels

appearing for the rival parties.

6. The petition challenges the order dated 01.02.2022

passed by the respondent No.3/Collector Yavatmal (page 27)

disqualifying the petitioner for a period of 5 years for non

submission of election expenses. Though, it is contended by

Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, that a

3 11.WP.1912-2023 JUDGMENT.odt

remedy of appeal is available, however considering the peculiar

facts of the case, I do not see any reason to relegate the

petitioner to the remedy of appeal for the reason that by the

Order No. 4 on Election Expenses dated 07.09.2021, the State

Election Commission, Maharashtra has expressly held that

candidates who have withdrawn their nominations will not be

required to submit the account of election expenses (page 46).

In view of this order dated 07.09.2021 by the State Election

Commission, Maharashtra, the impugned order dated

01.02.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the order

dated 25.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 cannot be

sustained and the same are hereby quashed and set aside.

7. The Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

( AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

S.D.Bhimte