Vijay Kumar Appa Karande v. Vijay T. Patil & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In this petition, the petitioner has not impleaded the candidates -: 2 :- wp-5505/10 whose nominations are accepted by respondent no.1–Election Officer. This Court in Vijaysingh K.Parbat v. Returning Officer reported in 2003(2) ALL MR 523 has held that the candidates whose nominations are…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5505 OF 2010 Vijay Kumar Appa Karande. Versus Vijay T. Patil & Others. ..Petitioner. ..Respondents. Mr. A. A. Siddiqui for the petitioner. Mr. S. A. Pawar for respondent no.1. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent no.3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 20, 2010. P. C. :
The petition pertains to the election to managing committee of Chandgadh Taluka Panchokroshi Co-op. Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai. The petitioner’s nomination was rejected by respondent no.1-Election Officer on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited an amount of Rs. 75,000/- with the society as required under the amended byes-laws. The petitioner challenged this order before the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies invoking provisions of Section 152A of the MCS Act,
1960. However, the Deputy Registrar confirmed the order of the Election Officer.
Operative part
In this petition, the petitioner has not impleaded the candidates -: 2 :- wp-5505/10 whose nominations are accepted by respondent no.1–Election Officer. This Court in Vijaysingh K.Parbat v. Returning Officer reported in 2003(2) ALL MR 523 has held that the candidates whose nominations are accepted are necessary parties to the petition challenging the rejection of nomination papers. It was further held that if the necessary parties are not joined in appeal, appeal is liable to be dismissed. The ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the petition in my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, writ petition is dismissed.
(R.V. MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Jul 2010. The bench was R V MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.