DATTATRAY RAMBHAU KUTAL v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. This Court cannot interfere with the election program at this stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate 979-wp-4794 OF 2022.odt proceedings under the provisions of appropriate act after election results…
Judgment
DATTATRAY RAMBHAU KUTAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Salgar Suresh P. AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. S.K. Kadam ... CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.G. MEHARE, J.J. DATED : 28th APRIL, 2022 PER COURT.:-
#2. Matter is on board and is mentioned out of turn. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by respondent no.3 thereby retaining names of 34 members in the final voters list dated 22.03.2022 of respondent no.4 society for ensuing elections for the term 2022-2027. The petitioner has raised an objection to the inclusion of names of those 34 members in the final voters list. The election program is admittedly published on
24.02.2022.
#3. This Court cannot interfere with the election program at this stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate 979-wp-4794 OF 2022.odt proceedings under the provisions of appropriate act after election results are declared. (S.G. MEHARE. J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) Mujaheed//
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 28 Apr 2022. The bench was S G MEHARE, R D DHANUKA.
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.