← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1784/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Ganesh Panditrao Gayakavad v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-02-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K.L. Wadane3 pages

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1784 OF 2017 Ganesh S/o Pandurang Gayakavad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Court's or Judge's orders Mr.M.D.Narwadkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.B.Bagul, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr.M.B.Bharaswadkar, advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4.

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.L.WADANE,JJ.

Date : 08.02.2017.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

Mr.Narwadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the name of the petitioner was appearing in the voters list for all the elections in the constituency. In the voters list prepared for Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti election 2017 of Circle No.3 Waghi (Dha), Taluka Jintur, the name of the petitioner does not appear. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has raised an objection with the Tahsildar on 1.2.2017, however, no cognizance has been taken about the same.

3.

Mr.Bharaswadkar, learned counsel appears for Respondent Nos.2 and 4.

4.

Learned A.G.P. appears for the rest of the Respondents. 5.

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 submits that as per the programme, objection could have been taken to the voters list up to 21.1.2017. The petitioner did not raise any objection. The name of the petitioner did not appear in the voters list forwarded to the Respondent No.4.

6.

The Schedule of election programme is fixed. The petitioner was provided with the opportunity of raising objection to the voters list and/or non-inclusion of his name in the voters list from 5.1.2017 to 21.1.2017, however, the petitioner failed to raise objection during the said period and for the first time, raised his objection on 1.2.2017. We could have considered the case of the petitioner, had the petitioner raised objection within the stipulated period. Now even the last date for withdrawal of nomination is also over.

7.

Considering above, no relief can be given to the petitioner. 8.

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.02.2017.

asp/office/wp1784.17