1 wp 9620.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 9620 OF 2012

Jagannath Gurubas Torkade

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State Election Commission

and others

.. Respondents

Shri G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri S. T Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

Smt. R. K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER, 2012.

PER COURT :

.

Shri Chincholkar, the learned counsel submits that, the

petitioner has filed election petition challenging election of the

respondent No. 5. Prima facie the respondent No. 5 was not

eligible to contest the election. His name does not appear in the

voters list. When the respondent No. 5 was not eligible to contest

the election in absence of his name in voters list, the Court ought

to have granted injunction restraining the respondent No. 5 from

participating and voting in the election of Sarpanch. The Trial

Court has wrongly rejected the application on the count that

2 wp 9620.12

U/Sec. 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, the Court cannot

grant injunction. Such a ground is illegal. The Court has every

power to grant injunction.

2.

Shri Shelke, the learned counsel for the Returning Officer

submits that the Court could not have granted injunction.

3.

The respondent No. 5 is a returned candidate. A returned

candidate cannot be injuncted by exercising his right until and

unless his election is set aside. This Court in a case of

Jagannath Pundalik Date and others Vs. Sukhdeo Onkar

Wankhede and others reported in AIR 1967 Bombay 317 has

held that no order of injunction can be passed against a returned

candidate from exercising his right.

4.

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.

The writ petition is as such dismissed, however, with no order as

to costs.

5.

Needless to state the election petition filed has to be

disposed of expeditiously by the Trial Court.

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

bsb/Nov. 12