Keshav vs Shivajirao & Ors
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 603
- Neutral2009 INSC 249
- SCR[2009] 3 SCR 621
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A writ petition challenging the deletion of a name from the voters list should not be entertained by the High Court prior to the declaration of the election programme, as such matters are premature and should instead be resolved through the proper statutory remedies available during the nomination scrutiny process and thereafter, rather than through anticipatory judicial intervention.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
4. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench. By the impugned order, the High Court
directed that the present appellant's name be deleted from the voters list. The High
Court entertained the writ petition primarily on the ground that the election
programme was not declared yet.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the election programme was
published on 17th February, 2009. It appears from the order of the High Court that
the matter was reserved for orders on 11.2.2009 and the judgment was delivered on
20.2.2009.
6. From the details of the election programme it appears that the last date for
getting the nomination form is 24.2.2009 and the last date for scrutiny of the
nomination form is 25.2.2009 and date of the publication of the nomination form is
26.2.2009. The date of the election is 29.3.2009 and the date of counting is
30.3.2009. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that apparently the name of
the appellant is not entitled to be included in the voter list because the cut-off date is
30.6.2007 and the appellant was enrolled on 14.7.2007 i.e. after the cut-off date.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the interpretation put by the
High Court is not correct.
9. We need go into this question in view of the order we propose to pass. Let
the petitioner's nomination form be scrutinized. It is open to the respondent to raise
objection about the entertainability of the nomination paper. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion about the validity of the nomination form or
otherwise. Needless to say the objection, if any, filed by the respondent shall be
considered in its proper perspective uninfluenced by any observations made by the
High Court. Further, if any person has any grievance regarding the determination of
validity, or otherwise of the nomination form available statutory remedy can be
availed. The order of the High Court is set aside.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free