Saroj S/O Chhotelal Maskare v. The District Election Officer, The Gondia District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gondia And Others

1 wp2088.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2088/2017 Shri Saroj S/o Chhotelal Maskare ..VS..

The District Election Officer & ors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.N. Gaoli, Advocate for the petitioner Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for the respondent no. 2 Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for the respondent no. 5 CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 08/01/2019 Heard V.N. Gaoli, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for the respondent no. 2 and Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for the respondent no. 5.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent no. 1 directing exclusion of his name from the list of voters. The learned advocate for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the elections of the respondent no. 3 - Bank are stayed by the Division Bench of this Court while considering the writ petitions which are pending. It is submitted that the elections are delayed by more than a year and the entitlement/eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the elections which may be held after further orders are passed by the Division Bench will have to be considered. It is submitted that there is every chance that for the elections, fresh process may be conducted. It is submitted that in these facts, nothing survives in the petition.

2 wp2088.17 The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that if fresh process is not conducted for the elections, and the process is continued from the same stage, the impugned order may adversely affect the petitioner's right to participate in the elections.

In the facts of the case, in my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice:- (a) Accepting the submission made on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the writ petition is disposed as infructuous.

(b) However, if the impugned order affects the right of the petitioner to participate in the election, the petitioner will be at liberty to revive this writ petition after serving the copy of the application on the advocates representing the respondents.

(c) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Ansari