9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the Returning Officer's actions. 2. Applicability of the doctrine of Restitution. 3. Locus standi of the appellant to file the appeal. Summary: 1. Legitimacy of the Returning Officer's actions: The appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge which declared the writ petition of respondent No. 1 as infructuous. The dispute arose when the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of both the appellant and respondent No. 1 for the Khultabad Taluka Co-operative Societies Constituency. Respondent No. 1's appeal against this rejection was dismissed, leading to the writ petition. The Single Judge initially directed the Returning Officer to accept respondent No. 1's nomination paper, resulting in his unopposed election. However, this order was later recalled, and the Returning Officer withdrew the election declaration. The Division Bench maintained the status quo, emphasizing that the correctness of the nomination rejection/acceptance was not adjudicated. The learned Single Judge concluded that the Returning Officer's withdrawal of the election declaration was beyond his jurisdiction, as the declaration had already been made under Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971. 2. Applicability of the doctrine of Restitution: The appellant argued that the election of respondent No. 1 should be set aside based on the doctrine of Restitution, citing various Supreme Court judgments. However, the court found that the doctrine of Restitution was not applicable in this case, as the appellant, being an intervenor and not a direct party to the original writ petition, could not seek restitution. The court emphasized that only an aggrieved party directly affected by a court order could seek such relief. 3. Locus standi of the appellant to file the appeal: The court held that the appellant, as an intervenor in the writ petition, did not have the locus standi to file the appeal. The intervenor's role was limited to addressing the court and not actively participating in the proceedings. The court noted that the appellant's remedy, if any, lay in filing an Election Petition before the appropriate authorities, as he was not directly connected or aggrieved by the impugned order. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's order. The court clarified that its observations should not influence any potential Election Petition proceedings, which should be decided on their own merits and in accordance with the law. The Civil Application was also disposed of as it became redundant following the dismissal of the appeal.
|
