Rahul Ramesh Wagh vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1559

A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALA
Rahul Ramesh Wagh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advocate, Mr. G.K. Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Advocate, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate, By Courts Motion, Advocate, Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Advocate, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Advocate, Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Advocate, Mr. G. Ananda Salvam, Advocate, Mr. Mayilsamy K., Advocate, Mr. Ram Sankar, Advocate, Mr. Sanchit Maheshwari, Advocate, Ms. Lakshmi Ramamurthy, Advocate, Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, Advocate, Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Advocate, Mr. Govind Karwa, Advocate, Mr. Mohit Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Omkar Deshpande, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Chirag Shah, Advocate, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. K.M. Natraj, Ld. ASG, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Ld. AAAG, Mr. Bharat Singh, Ld. AAG, Mr. D.S. Parmar, Ld. AAG, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate, Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Seth, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Seth, Advocate, M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, Advocate, Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate, Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate, Ms. Sregurupriya, Advocate, Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advocate, Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, Advocate, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Vinay N., Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shirang B.V., Advocate, Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Kishor Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Thakur, Advocate, M/S. Lambat & Legiteam, Advocate, Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Advocate, Mr. Firdos T. Mirza, Advocate, Mr. Purshottam B. Patil, Advocate, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Advocate, Ms. Prapti Allagh, Advocate, Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Anant Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Raghav Ramkaran, Advocate, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. B.A. Wadhmare, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Rajora, Advocate, Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Advocate, Ms. Sweta Sand, Advocate, Mr. N. Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Signh, Advocate, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Pranav Saigal, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Sabarwal, Advocate, Ms. Manini Roy, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu, Advocate, Ms. A. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth B., Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Advocate, Ms. P. Kar, Advocate, Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Advocate, For the Respondent.

ORDER

I.A. No. 92695 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 19756 of 2021 and I.A. No. 93235 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 238 of 2022

1. This order disposes of two interlocutory applications namely, I.A. No. 92695 of 2022 filed by the State of Maharashtra and I. A. No. 93235 of 2022 filed by the intervenor.

2. It is prayed by the State of Maharashtra that since the Dedicated Commission for Reservation for Backward Class of Citizens in Local Bodies of Maharashtra has submitted its report on 07.07.2022, after complying with the necessary enquiries for arriving at the proportion for providing reservation for Other Backward Class category local body-wise, the Election Commission be permitted to proceed with the election process of the remaining local bodies on that basis.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission has pointed out that as of today, election programme in respect of 367 local bodies has already commenced and the same will be continued and taken to its logical end, in due course.

4. As regards the remaining local bodies, referred to in the chart filed with the status report, we direct the Election Commission and all the State authorities to ensure that the election process in respect of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1559

A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALARahul Ramesh Wagh – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra – Respondent

A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALA
Rahul Ramesh Wagh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent