Baburao Vithalrao Panchal And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12158 OF 2016 1.

Baburao s/o Vithalrao Panchal Age 50 years, occup. Agrist., R/o AT post Italapur Deshmukh, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani 2.

Dwarkabai w/o Satish @ Satyakumar Age 40 years, occup. Agrist.

R/o Post Matkrhala, Tq. Dist. Parbhani .. Petitioner versus 1.

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2.

District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Parbhani .. Respondents -- Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S. K. Tambe, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents CORAM :

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE :

8th December, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for appearing parties finally.

2.

It appears that the petitioners have been elected in the byeelections which were held in April, 2015, in respect of gram

panchayat of village Matkarhala and have been since then functioning as such. The term of the gram panchayat would come to an end around November, 2017. In the circumstances, in the normal course, their names ought to have occurred in voters' list for elections to managing committee, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Parbhani. However, their names were not included and as such, they had approached respondent no.2 for inclusion of their names in voters' list. However, respondent no. 2, referring rule 36

(15) of Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, declined the request under impugned communications dated 02-12-2016 and 03-12-2016 on the ground that application of the petitioners had been received after expiry of last date for submission of nomination and hence, petitioners are before this court.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioners points out a judgment dated 29-11-2016 delivered by honourable single judge in writ petition no. 11810 of 2016 and submits that his case is squarely covered by said judgment, submitting further that the facts in said case were similar to the facts involved in the present case and observations in the judgment have been rendered in the similar circumstances and as such urges to allow writ petition. He particularly relies on observations in paragraph no. 5 reading thus; '' 5.

The provisions discussed by this Court in aforesaid writ petitions show that it was the duty of the authority to collect the

names of the members of the Village Panchayat and include those names in the voters list. As the names are not included, this Court holds that list needs to be corrected and opportunity needs to be given to the present petitioners to vote in the election. '' 4.

Mr. Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents, though purports to oppose, however, has not been in a position to clearly come out of the observations in cited case reproduced hereinbefore.

5.

Having regard to the exigency and peculiar circumstances in the present petition, it would be expedient and proper to follow the observations reproduced hereinabove, making it clear that this order would not have efficacy as a binding precedent. 6.

Writ petition as such stands granted in terms of prayer clause (B). Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition stands accordingly disposed of.

7.

Parties to act on authenticated copy of the order. SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE pnd