Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)
Ranjana Sugriv Borule vs The State Of Maharashtra Trough Its ... on 1 April, 2021 cites

State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs State Election Commission Through The ... on 28 September, 2005

10.2 Mr. Kumbhakoni then submitted that in view the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5234 of 2005 dated 10/08/2005 in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. State Election Commission and ors (hereinafter referred to as State of Maharashtra - 1) and also in view of the decision in the case of 'State of Maharashtra - 2', the issue is no longer resintegra. He submitted that even when the provision for appointment of Administrator beyond the expiry of the constitutional term of fve years did not exist, this Court held that the State Election Commission could step in and in exercise of its powers under 17/34 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2021 23:16:08 ::: wp 3469.20 & ors.doc Article 243K, an Administrator could be appointed in such a situation. He would submit that even then the State Election Commission had appointed government ofcials as Administrator. 10.3 Mr.Kumbhakoni would then submit that the petitioners claim of parity between Village Panchayats on the one hand and on the other, the Co-operative Societies, Agricultural Produce Market Committees is unsustainable. According to him, Co-operative Societies and APMC function in diferent spheres and are constituted under separate enactments altogether. Moreover, the provision like Article 243E of the Constitution prohibiting the continuance of the existing Panchayats after the expiry of its term is not present in respect of Co-operative Societies or Agricultural Produce Market Committees. 10.4 Learned Advocate General contended that the State Election Commission requested the State Government to appoint an Administrator. Pursuant to this direction, the State took a decision to appoint a 'suitable' person as an Administrator by promulgating the Ordinance. According to him now that State Government having decided to appoint government ofcial/servant as Administrator, the petitioners cannot seek a 18/34 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2021 23:16:08 ::: wp 3469.20 & ors.doc relief which would be directly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in 'State of Maharashtra -2'.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 21 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next