← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1475/2020disposed offdismissed for default

Hanuman Namdevrao Jakate v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2020-01-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni2 pages

1 946-WP-1475-2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 2020 HANUMAN NAMDEVRAO JAKAGTE ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS Mr B.R. Kedar, Advocate for Petitioner Mr A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents-State CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2020 PER COURT :

1.

Mr Kedar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Latur has been reserved for O.B.C. The same is illegal. Within five years, the said post is reserved twice for O.B.C. Once the post was reserved for O.B.C., the same has to be excluded for further reservation till the full rotation is complete. The respondent has committed illegality. The rights of the petitioner are affected. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner belongs to S.C. category and he is Corporator of the Municipal Corporation, Latur. 2.

The draws were made in the month of November, 2019. The petitioner had an opportunity to challenge the same. The

2 946-WP-1475-2020 petitioner slept over his right and did not challenge the reservation made, allowed the elections to proceed further. The elections are also held on 22nd November, 2019. Now, the election of the post of the Mayor is challenged on the ground that the rotation policy is not followed. We cannot entertain the writ petition challenging the election after the election is over on the ground of rotation policy for which the reservations were made in the month of November itself. The petitioner ought to be diligent in challenging the same. It would be inappropriate to set the clock back at this stage. 3.

Mr Kedar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed intervention application in one of the writ petitions. The same would be considered on its own merits and as may be permissible under law.

In light of that, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] mta