ANIRUDDH PANDEY Vs. ADVOCATE GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE dictating the judgment, we asked the learned Counsel for the appellant that whether he wants to exploit the liberty reserved in favour of the appellant or not because the observations made by us are likely to affect his right of election petition, learned Counsel for the appellant after consulting the appellant, who is also present in the Court, submitted that the appellant wants a judgment on the merits of the matter and is not interested in the election petition. In view of that submission, we have to consider the merits of the matter.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 23-6-2008 passed in Writ petition No. 6706/2008 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant/petitioner's writ petition, the appellant has filed this writ appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(3.) SHORT facts necessary for consideration of this writ appeal are that the appellant, a person registered with the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, is a practicing Advocate. He submitted his candidature for the elections, which were to commence on 29-4-2008. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards the fee.