← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1717/2022disposed off

Vijay Sambhaji Dalavi v. The Election Officer, Jaymalhar Vivid Karyakari (Vikas) Seva Society Ltd. And ORS

2022-02-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge2 pages

1/2 503 wp-1717-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by SALGAONKAR M M Date: 2022.02.22 21:20:20 +0530 SALGAONKAR M M CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1717 OF 2022 Vijay Sambhaji Dalavi ..

Petitioner

Versus

The Election Offcer, Jaymalhar Vivid Karyakari (Vikas) Seva Society Ltd.

& Ors.

..

Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1641 OF 2022 Ramesh Laxman Patil ..

Petitioner

Versus

The Election Offcer, Jaymalhar Vivid Karyakari (Vikas) Seva Society Ltd.

& Ors.

..

Respondents ...

Mr.Prashant D. Patil for the Petitioners.

Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 7 in both the Petitions.

Mr.Abhay Thorat for the Respondent No.6 in WP/1641/22. Ms.M.S.Bane, AGP for the State/Respondent in WP/1717/22. Mr.S.H.Kankal, AGP for the State/Respondent in WP/1641/22. ...

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2022 M.M.Salgaonkar

2/2 503 wp-1717-22.doc P.C:- 1.

Both the petitioners are identically placed. Both intend to contest the elections under the election programme dated 11/01/2022. The nomination forms of both the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the 7/12 extract was not annexed to the nomination form, which is a requirement for acceptance.

2.

Objections were raised by respondent No.6 and based on such objections, the petitioners were called upon to produce the 7/12 extract, which they did not. Consequentially by orders dated 04/02/2022, the Returning Offcer invalidated their forms. The petitioners have preferred the statutory appeal and the same has also been rejected.

3.

Considering the above and since the election programme has already commenced, no ex-parte ad-interim order could be granted in favour of the petitioners to validate their nomination forms and allow them to contest the elections, in as much as, these petitions cannot be entertained. 4.

Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 5.

Needless to state, the petitioners are not remedyless and can avail of the statutory remedy, as may be permissible in law.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar