Bombay High Court
Rajkumar Laxmanprasad Kesarwani ... vs The Returning Officer & Others on 28 March, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp2701.04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2701 OF 2004.
Rajkumar s/o Laxmanprasad Kesarwani,
Aged about 48 years,
resident of Main Road, Tirora,
Tahsil Tirora, District Gondia. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The Returning Officer and Tahsildar,
Tirora, Tah. Tirora, District Gondia.
2. The Collector, Gondia,
District Gondia.
3. The Deputy Collector (Election)
Office of the Collector, Gondia,
District Gondia.
4. Giridhar s/o Ghasiram Bisen,
r/o. Wadegaon, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
5. Anantram s/o Gyaniram Patle,
r/o. Navegaon (Khurd), Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
6. Gajanan s/o Jairam Thakre,
r/o. Vihirgaon, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
7. Surajlal s/o Dulichand Katre,
r/o. Belati (Khurd), Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
8. Hemraj s/o Ratiram Ambule,
r/o. Indora (Bzk), Tah. Tirora,
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2018 00:41:18 :::
Judgment wp2701.04
2
District Gondia.
9. Chunnilal s/o Zaduji Patle,
r/o. Dhadri, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
Gopichand s/o Maniram Bhelave.,
(R.No.10- Deleted)
10. Dineshkumar s/o Ramsevak Asati,
r/o. Khairbodi, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
11. Arunkumar s/o Uttamprasad Mishra,
r/o. Sawla, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
12. Deoram s/o Premlal Choudhary,
r/o. Belati (Bzk), Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
13. Radheshyam s/o Nilkanth Nagpure,
r/o. Lodhitola, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
14. Rupchand s/o Rajaram Meshram,
r/o. Ghirdi, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
Bhishmakumar s/o Purajlal Parihar
(R.No.16-deleted)
15. Umashankar s/o Laxmichand Choudhary,
r/o. kachawani, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
Housilal s/o Kashiram Patle,
(R.No.18 Deleted)
Kishorilal s/o Tikaram Patle,
(R.No.19 - Deleted)
16. Dindayal s/o Kisan Meshram,
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2018 00:41:18 :::
Judgment wp2701.04
3
r/o. Koylari, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
17. Tejram s/o Faguji Patle,
r/o. Chikhli, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
Rajkumar s/o Sadhuram Sharma,
(R.No.22 - Deleted)
Loklal s/o Mahadeo Rahangdale,
(r.No.23 - Deleted)
18. Jitendra s/o Shobharam Bhagat,
r/o. Paraswada, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
19. Sukhdeo s/o Balaramji Pardhi,
r/o. Murmadi, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
Sukdas s/o Parasram Thakur,
(R.No.26 - Deleted)
Timaji s/o Ramprasad Patle,
(R.No.28 - Deleted)
20. Pralhad s/o Lahu Jambhulkar,
r/o. Chirekhadi, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
Jaitram s/o Harichand Hinge,
(R.No.29 - Deleted)
21. Beniram s/o Asaram Rahangdale,
r/o. Wadegaon, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
22. Bharatlal s/o Lataru Baghele,
r/o. Wadegaon, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2018 00:41:18 :::
Judgment wp2701.04
4
23. Sitaram s/o Jiwan Bisen,
r/o. Thanegaon, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
Khushal s/o Budharam Katre,
(R,No.33-Deleted)
Gajanan s/o Karuji Barapatre,
(R.No.34 - Deleted)
Asaram s/o Bathu Bhagat,
(R.No.35 - Deleted)
24. Dhanlal s/o Ramchandra Rahangdale,
r/o. Mundipar, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
25. Ashok s/o Sarvansingh Chauhan,
r/o. Tirora, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
26. Shivkumar s/o Munnilal Kesarwani,
r/o. Tirora, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia.
27. Tukaram Laxman Sapate,
r/o. Churdi, Tah. Tirora,
District Gondia. ... RESPONDENTS.
-----------
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
None for other Respondents.
-----------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 28, 2018.
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2018 00:41:18 :::
Judgment wp2701.04
5
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
None appears for petitioner and other private respondents. Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned A.G.P. is present for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. Learned A.G.P. points out that the challenge was to rejection of nomination paper of petitioner in election of APMC Tikrora.
3. She submits that not only election then scheduled on 14.07.2004, but, thereafter 2 or 3 more elections must have taken place and therefore, the controversy has become infructuous.
4. With her assistance, we have perused the papers. Division Bench of this Court has on 31.08.2005, observed that elections of office bearers then scheduled on 02.09.2005 would be subject to result of Writ Petition. By earlier order dated 09.07.2004, Division Bench while issuing Rule in the matter granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iii), thereby directed acceptance of nomination form of petitioner and allotment of symbol in his favour.
5. Later order dated 31.08.2005 on Civil Application No. ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2018 00:41:18 ::: Judgment wp2701.04 6 5717/2005, shows that Civil Application was in relation to elections to the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman of said A.P.M.C. due on 02.09.2005. Thus, elections as Directors were already over before 31.08.2005.
6. Writ Petition No. 2701/2004 was heard and on 21.10.2005, an order was passed referring the question - "Whether it is necessary for a candidate contesting election from the Constituency as provided under Section 13[1][a][i] and [ii] of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, to be a voter from that Constituency, apart from he being an agriculturist ?" to Larger Bench.
7. The Larger Bench pronounced its judgment on 21.12.2005 and has answered the question as under :
"26. Therefore, after considering the relevant provisions as aforesaid, our answer to the question posed in the reference is as under :
It is necessary for a candidate contesting election from the constituency as provided under Section 13[1][a][i] and [ii] of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 to be a voter from the respective constituency from which he is seeking election apart from he being an agriculturist."::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2018 00:41:18 :::
Judgment wp2701.04 7
8. The matter was then carried in Special Leave Petition.
It appears that the Special Leave Petition was lateron withdrawn.
9. In this situation, we find that after directions to accept the nomination paper and participation in the election process by petitioner and due to passage of time, no further orders need to be passed in this petition. Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2018 00:41:18 :::