Bapurao Devappa Chavan v. The District Collector And ORS.

1 of 3 932.WP.4666.2018 & group

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2018 Yamuna Udhav Ravtale Petitioner versus The District Collector and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4667 OF 2018 Sujata Sachin Kadam Petitioner versus The District Collector and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4668 OF 2018 Abdul Vazir Shikalgar Petitioner versus The District Collector and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4669 OF 2018 Pandurang Mahadev Honwar Petitioner versus The District Collector and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4670 OF 2018 Shaila Sampatrao Honwar Petitioner versus The District Collector and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4671 OF 2018 Bapurao Devappa Chavan Petitioner versus

2 of 3 932.WP.4666.2018 & group The District Collector and others Respondents Mr.Umesh R.Mankapure for petitioners.

Mr.S.B.Shetye for Election Officer.

Mr.Vikas Mali, AGP, for State.

CORAM :

B.R.GAVAI AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATE :

19th April 2018 PC :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the parties by consent.

2.

Learned AGP as well as learned counsel for Election Commission have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petitions on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. Undisputedly under sub­section 2 of Section 14(B) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the Election Commission had delegated the powers to the Divisional Commissioner, however, it appears that the office of Divisional Commissioner is vacant. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioners are presently disqualified inasmuch as the authority before whom the remedy is available under sub­section 2 of Section 13(B) is not functional.

3.

Apart from that, we find that the petitioners are being disqualified on technical ground. There is slight delay in submitting the returns of the expenditure incurred for the election. Undisputedly the petitioners have now submitted the expenditure returns.

3 of 3 932.WP.4666.2018 & group 4.

We are of the considered view that a person who is elected, if is permitted to be disqualified on such hyper technical ground, it will not only cause prejudice to the petitioners alone, but also to the electorate which have elected the petitioners. In the result, all these petitions are allowed. The impugned order of disqualification in each of the petition is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.) MST