← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3536/2022disposed off

Namkarna Yashwant Aware v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2022-05-04Hon'Ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar2 pages

504.WP 3536-2022.doc Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date:

2022.05.07 10:11:11 +0530 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3536 OF 2022 Namkarna Yashwant Aware ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors

...Respondents

Mr. Pratik B. Rahade for the Petitioner.

Mr. R.P.Kadam, A.G.P for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe for the Respondent No.4.

Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, Chief Standing Counsel, SCEA a/w Ms. Pooja Patil for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE : 4 th MAY, 2022 P.C. :

1.

Learned Counsel for the respondents has tendered an affidavitin-reply on behalf of the respondent No.3 - District Co-operative Election Officer / District Deputy Registrar. The same is taken on record and a copy thereof, is served on the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner after going through the reply, does not press this petition having regard to what is stated in para 5 Wakodikar 1/2

504.WP 3536-2022.doc of the said affidavit-in-reply tendered by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 - District Co-operative Election Officer / District Deputy Registrar and as such, seeks leave to withdraw the petition. 3.

Para 5 of the said affidavit-in-reply reads thus; "5.

That, the said election program of Respondent No.4 would now be continued as further from 06/05/2022 for finalization of voter list as per the schedule contemplated under the provisions of MCS (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, from the stage where it was paused and even with approval of the Respondent No.2 State Co-operative Election Authority, Pune, as prescribed, the further schedule of the said election programme under Rule 18 of the said Rules would also be completed."

4.

The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 5.

It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the petition.

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Wakodikar 2/2