CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2015 › Prakash Motiram Chavan v. Harichand & Ors.

Prakash Motiram Chavan v. Harichand & Ors.

Supreme Court of India · 11 September 2015

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
11 September 2015
Case no.
C.A. No. 7059 of 2015
Bench
Kurian Joseph, Arun Mishra
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7059 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27007 of 2014) PRAKASH MOTIRAM CHAVAN AND ORS. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

HARICHAND & ORS. RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

Issue in this appeal pertains to the election of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti and on reservation.

The High Court by the impugned order 12.09.2014 quashed the reservation provided in respect of Office of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Kallamb for the term 2014-2017 with a direction to the District Collector, Osmanabad to reconsider the issue of reservation, in question, in accordance with relevant Rules.

Taking note of the fact that the election process had already been commenced, this Court by order dated 22.09.2014 stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court. We are informed that on account of the stay, the election process already commenced, continued and the elections are over. For this, the appeal is disposed of by making it

JUDGMENT

clear that if any party is aggrieved by outcome of the election, it will be open to the parties to pursue the same before the appropriate forum. The impugned judgment dated 12.09.2014 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. However, the question of law is kept open.

................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]

................J. [ARUN MISHRA] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 11, 2015

Ask CaseMinister about Prakash Motiram Chavan v. Harichand & Ors.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp