Bombay High CourtCAO/1765/2016admittedallwdgrantedrule absolute

Kishore S/O Uttamrao Gajbhiye v. The Election Commission Of India Through Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi And Others

2016-10-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre3 pages

ep.5.14 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application [CAO] No.1765 of 2016 in Election Petition No.5 of 2014 (Kishor Uttamrao Gajbhiye vs.

The Collector and District Election Officer, Nagpur and others) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri R.S. Khobragade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.

CORAM

: S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 6 th OCTOBER, 2016.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for respondent No.3.

It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 - the Collector and District Election Officer is not the person named in Section 82 or Section 86(4) of the Representation of the Peoples' Act, 1951. Therefore, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others - (1982) 1 SCC 691; (ii) Michael B. Fernandes vs. C.K. Jaffar Sharief and others - AIR 2002 SC 1041 and (iii) B. Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India and others, I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The original respondent No.3 - the Collector and District Election

ep.5.14 2 Officer be deleted as party-respondent from the array of the respondents. Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks.

Civil Application [CAO] No.880/2016 :

Heard.

Having considered the ground taken in this application seeking speaking to the minutes, the ground that instead of the prayer for deleting the name of respondent No.3, the prayer was made for deleting the name of respondent No.4, the Returning Officer inadvertently, is no ground in the eyes of law for seeking clarification from the Court regarding the order passed and, therefore, the application stands rejected. *sdw JUDGE

ep.5.14 3 C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of the original signed order.

Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 07/10/2016 P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.