Bombay High CourtWP/2726/2016dismissedrule discharged

Shri. Ishwar Chintamanji Pawar v. Municipal Council Kalmeshwar Thr. Chief Officer And Others

2016-06-13Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

1306wp2726.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2726/2016 Shri Ishwar Chintamanji Pawar ...Versus...

Municipal Council, Kalmeshwar, Tah - Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur, through its Chief Officer and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 13.06.2016 By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the communication addressed by the respondent no.2 - President of the Education Society to the Joint Director of Higher and Technical Education, dated 9.12.2015, rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and a social worker, who fights against the illegalities in the Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 is residing in the same locality and is working as a lecturer/Physical Training Instructor in the college run by the respondent no.2 - Management. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.3 is elected as a Member of the Municipal Council and is receiving the salary from the respondent no.2 as well as the Municipal Council. It is stated that the respondent no.3 did not seek any permission

1306wp2726.16.odt to contest the election before contesting the same and was elected.

We are afraid that the petition cannot be entertained at the behest of the petitioner. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Moreover, the respondent no.2 had constituted a Three Member Committee to look into the complaint made by the petitioner and has found that the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint are not substantiated.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar