Advocates:
RAVINDRA KESHAVRAO ADSURE

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.1 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s).20825-20826/2017

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL Respondent(s)

(IA No.131135/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT and IA No.131136/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF

DATES and IA No.131137/2017-STAY APPLICATION and IA

No.131138/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 08-12-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Appellant(s)

Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Hari Zol, Adv.

Mr. Prashant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.

Mr. Ajit B. Kale, Adv.

Ms. Himanshi Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Siddheshwar Biradar, Adv.

Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv. [AOR]

For Respondent(s)/

Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.

Caveator (s)

Mr. Pravin M. Shah, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv. [AOR]

Mr. Aditya N. Sikchi, Adv.

Mr. Gajanan Jakkalwar, Adv.

Mr. Dhamangaonkar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel for the

appellant.

Admit.

As the respondent-caveator, the election petitioner

before the High Court, has entered appearance, we have taken up

the prayer for consideration of the interim relief.

..../2

Digitally signed by

SATISH KUMAR YADAV

Date: 2017.12.08

18:00:51 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

C.A.Nos.20825-20826/2017 .... (contd.)

- 2 -

It is submitted by Mr. Salve that the learned Single

Judge of the High Court, while dealing with assail to the

election of the appellant as a member of the Legislative

Assembly, has not kept in view the concept of consistency of

evidence and, in a way, has placed reliance on inadmissible

evidence. He would further submit that there is enough

material on record to come to a definite conclusion that the

appellant was within the premises of the Returning Officer and

the nomination paper was filed within time, i.e. 3:00 p.m.

Be it noted, learned Single Judge of the High Court has

set aside the election on two grounds, viz., the nomination was

filed belatedly and the original affidavit was not filed along

with the form. We may hasten to add here that the learned

Single Judge has also returned the finding that the two forms

were in order. It is not in dispute that multiple nomination

forms can be filed by a candidate, but the said forms, though

accepted by the Returning Officer, have been treated to be

invalid by the High Court, singularly on the ground that they

were filed beyond 3:00 p.m.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent-caveator, opposing the prayer for interim relief,

contended that the High Court has perused the C.D. and has also

taken note of the evidence on record to come to a definite

conclusion that the nomination papers were not submitted within

time and, hence the finding recorded and the conclusion arrived

at by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with.

After bestowing our anxious consideration on the

submissions canvassed and upon careful scrutiny of the impugned

judgment, we are of the considered opinion, it is a fit case

where the impugned judgment and order should be stayed and,

accordingly, it is so ordered.

Let the matter be listed in the first week of March,

2018, for final disposal.

(Subhash Chander) (H.S. Parasher)

AR-cum-PS Assistant Registrar