Laxman Dattatraya Raskar And Others v. The State Election Commission Maharashtra State And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:11842 ( 1 ) 909 wp 5047.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 909 WRIT PETITION NO. 5047 OF 2025 LAXMAN DATTATRAYA RASKAR AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE AND OTHERS .....

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Karpe h/f. Nikat Saurabh Raghunath AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. P.J. Bharad Advocate for Resp. No.1: Mr. Mr. Kadethankar Ajit B. .....

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE :

22.04.2025 P.C. :- 1.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the shifting of their names while preparing the voters list from one ward to another ward. They claim to be aggrieved by the fact that in spite of their objections raised pursuant to the notification, it has not been considered and the draft voters list is being finalized.

2.

We have heard the learned advocate for petitioners, the learned AGP as also the learned advocate who appears for respondent no.1-State Election Commission.

( 2 ) 909 wp 5047.25 3.

Though it appears that the petitioners' application raising objection was submitted to the office of respondent no.4 and bears the date 24.03.2025, it has been actually tendered in the office, as can be seen, on 26.03.2025, beyond the period stipulated for raising the objections as per the notification dated 10.03.2025. Besides it also does not seem to be in accordance with the prescribed format viz. Annexure-A to the order issued by respondent no.1 dated 30.01.2023 and corrigendum dated 23.12.2023, provided for the purpose of raising the objections seeking correction of the provisional voters list.

4.

In the light of above, in view of the fact that the petitioners seem to be seeking to derive the benefit of clause no.5.1 of the order dated 30.01.2023 and corrigendum dated 23.12.2023, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate separate suitable applications in the prescribed form within two weeks and if any such application is made, respondent no.3-returning officer shall consider those in accordance with law, strictly within the parameters of clause no.5.1. Such decision shall be taken by respondent no.3/returning officer within four weeks from submission of the objections in the prescribed form. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] mub