Keshav v. Shivajirao & Ors.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 2009. From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.02.09 of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 74 of 2009. From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.2.09 of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 74 of 2009. U.U. Lalit, Sudhanshu, S. Choudhari, Laxmikanth Patel and Arundhati Sukhntar for the Appellant. Uday B. Dube, Kuldip Singh, Chinmoy S. Khaladkar and G Chandan Ramamurthi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1Taken on Board.

2Heard Learned counsel for the parties.

3Leave granted.

4Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench. By the impugned order, the High Court directed that the present appellant's name be deleted from the voters list. The High Court entertained the writ petition primarily on the ground that the election programme was not declared yet.

5Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the election programme was published on 171h February, 2009. It appears from the order of the High Court that the matter was 0 reserved for orders on 11.2.2009 and the judgment was delivered on 20.2.2009.

6From the details of the election programme it appears that the last date for getting the nomination form is 24.2.2009 and the last date for scrutiny of the nomination form is 25.2.2009 and date of the publication of the nomination form is 26.2.2009. The date of the election is 29.3.2009 and the date of counting is 30.3.2009.

7Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that apparently the name of the appellant is not entitled to be included in the voter list because the cut-off date is 30.6.2007 and the appellant was enrolled on 14.7.2007 i.e. after the cutoff date.

8Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the interpretation put by the High Court is not correct.

9We need go into this question in view of the order we propose to pass. Let the petitioner's nomination form be scrutinized. It is open to the respondent to raise objection about the entertainability of the nomination paper. We make it clear KESHAV v. SHIVAJIRAO & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] that we have not expressed any opinion about the validity of A the nomination form or otherwise. Needless to say the objection, if any, filed by the respondent shall be considered in its proper perspective uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court. Further, if any person has any grievance regarding the determination of validity, or otherwise of the nomination form available statutory remedy can be availed. The order of the High Court is set aside.

10The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeal disposed of. · C