Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Tikaram S/O Narayan Dhakate vs Govt. Of Maha. Thr. District ... on 7 January, 2019

Author: Z.A.Haq

Bench: Z.A. Haq

                                                      1                                     wp663.17

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                              WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 2017
            (TIKARAM NARAYAN DHAKATE...VS.. GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Shri S.K.Tambde, Advocate for Petitioner.
                            Ms Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
                            Shri O. Ghare, Adv. h/f. Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for Resp. No.2.

                                            CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JANUARY 07, 2019.

Heard.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1-District Co-operative Election Officer for Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank Limited directing inclusion of name of respondent No.3 in the list of voters. By the order dated 21/01/2017, while issuing notice, this Court has directed that the election programme shall not be declared. The learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have pointed out that the elections of the respondent No.2-Bank are stayed by the Division Bench of this Court while considering the writ petitions which are pending. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has 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 wp663.17 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. 2, 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 RRaut..