LAWS(BOM)-2015-1-16

SHIVAJI LAXMAN SAHANE Vs. JAYWANTRAO PUNDALIKRAO JADHAV

Decided On January 13, 2015
Shivaji Laxman Sahane Appellant
V/S
Jaywantrao Pundalikrao Jadhav Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Korde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent at length.

(2.) Shivaji Laxman Sahane, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, has instituted this Petition under Section 81 read with Section 100(1)(d) (iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'Act') calling in question the election of Jaywantrao Pundalikrao Jadhav, hereinafter referred to as the respondent held in the Biennial Election for the year 2012 from the Nashik Local Authorities Members Constituency for Maharashtra State Legislative Council (for short 'Election'). The facts leading to filing of this Petition, briefly stated, are as under:

(3.) By issuing a press note on 23.04.2012, Election Commission of India declared the Election Programme for the 6 Local Authorities Constituencies for the Maharashtra Legislative Council for the Biennial Election for the year 2012. The last date of filing nominations was 07.05.2012. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed on 08.05.2012. The last date for withdrawal of nominations was 10.05.2012. The date of voting / polling was 25.05.2012 and the date of counting of votes was 28.05.2012. It was also directed that the process of election shall be completed before 30.05.2012. The petitioner being the authorized candidate from the Shiv Sena Party, which is a recognized and registered political party in the State of Maharashtra, submitted his nomination form on 07.05.2012. The same was accepted as a valid nomination form. The respondent also submitted his nomination form being the official candidate from the Nationalist Congress Party (N.C.P.), which is a registered and recognized political party in the State of Maharashtra. Apart from the petitioner and respondent, four other candidates submitted nomination forms, which were either withdrawn or invalidated by the Returning Officer. Thus, the petitioner and respondent were the only contesting candidates after the last date of withdrawal of nomination forms.