S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
Dnyaneshwar M. Satav – Appellant
Versus
Jalindhar Dgondiba Kharabi – Respondent
Rule. The contesting respondent waives service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Since the office report is that service is complete, with the consent of parties appearing through advocates, the writ petition is disposed of finally by this judgment.
2} By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.68 of 2011 dated 20th December 2011, confirming the view and order of the Collector dated 15th June 2011 in Application No.14 of 2011.
3} The proceedings are under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”).
4} The petitioner states that the elections to Gram Panchayat, Kharabwadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune were held and the petitioner was elected. This was a general election of the Gram Panchayat, which was notified on 30th June 2010. The seat in question, namely, Ward No.4 was unreserved. One Lata Vitthal Birdavade filed her nomination for a reserved seat for Other Backward Class ladies. The petitioner also filed nomination for a general seat. Both, the lady candidate and the petiti
Dhirendra Pandua Vs. State of Orissa and others
Dnyaneshwar Patiram @ Ratiraj Shirbhiye Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors
Hanumant P. Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Ishwar Nagar Co-op. Housing Building Society V s. Parma Nand Sharma and others
K. Prabhakaran Vs. P. Jayarajan
Shrikrishna Wasudeo Dhage Vs. Shivcharan Trimbakrao Kalne and others
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Surinder Singh Banolta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.