← Library
Bombay High CourtCAO/1219/2024ca disposed off

Santosh S/O Tulshiram Chavhan v. Election Commissioner Of India Thr. Chief Election, District Collector, Nagpur And Other

2024-10-08Hon'Ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke2 pages

2024:BHC-NAG:11484-DB

(1) 1.cao.1219.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil APPLICATION (CAO) NO.1219 OF 2024 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.1 OF 2024 Santosh s/o Tulshiram Chavhan Vs.

Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi and Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Santosh T. Chavhan, in person.

Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey, Counsel for the respondent No.1. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 08/10/2024 1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking permission to appear and argue the case in person.

2.

In view of Chapter IV-A Rule 2 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar Administration, who is a Committee Member have interviewed the applicant and submitted his report showing that the applicant is a practicing Advocate. He is well acquainted with the facts of the case. He is aware that the decorum of the Court has to be maintained. He has also furnished necessary undertaking as required by the Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in person by parties has been given by him.

(2) 1.cao.1219.2024 3.

I have also satisfied myself whether he is acquainted with the facts of the case as well as able to argue the matter in person and whether he is able to maintain the decorum of the Court. On satisfying myself, I come to the to the conclusion that the applicant is aware about the decorum of this court which has to be maintained and therefore, application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

4.

The applicant is permitted to appear and argue the case in person.

5.

The application is disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate