ladda 1wp-7103-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7103 OF 2011 Shri Shivale Prafulla Kaluram ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors ...Respondents Ms Leena Patil i/by M.S. Karnik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr R.V.Govilkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 16th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Rayrikar, learned A.G.P.for respondent No.1 and Mr Govilkar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, respectively. 2. By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs. ladda 2wp-7103-11 (a) “this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to, by appropriate writ and / or order and / or direction, declare that the election of Respondent No.4 as a Member of the Managing Committee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shirur, district Pune in Economically Weaker Section Constituency as illegal and bad in law; (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 8th August,2011 passed by the Respondent No.2 declaring the Respondent No.4 as validly elected Member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shirur, District Pune in Economically Weaker Section Constituency; (c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the applicant as elected from the Constituency reserved for Economically Weaker Section in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shirur, District Pune and/or, in the alternative, fresh elections to the said Constituency may be ordered; (d) In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to decide the Dispute Application dated 16.8.2011, expeditiously, and within such time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court”. 3. The petitioner by filing dispute on 16.8.2011 have challenged already the election of respondent No.4 before the District Deputy Registrar, Pune. The petitioner filed the present petition on the ground that the remedy which he has undertaken is not efficacious. The petitioner submits that respondent No.4 got elected from the Economical Weaker Sections Category. However, prima facie there is material that respondent ladda 3wp-7103-11 No.4 is a rich person. The petitioner relies upon the document at page No. 33 which shows that respondent No.4 has purchased Mitsubishi Pajero car for an amount of Rs.26,33,137/-. On the contrary, Mr Govilkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner has already availed alternative remedy which is efficacious and, therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained. He relied upon the decisions in the cases of Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana & ors (2010) 1 SCC 126 and Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 2608. 4. The perusal of the Apex Court decisions reveals that the High Court may exercise power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India where the order impugned in the petition is in violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no dispute about the proposition. Remedy the petitioner has availed, in my opinion, is efficacious remedy. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the above circumstances, makes a statement that she does not press prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) of the petition. She submits that prayer (d) however may be considered. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, interest of justice would be sub-served by directing expeditious hearing of the election petition. Mr Govilkar submits that this Court cannot entertain the petition in view of the fact that the petitioner has availed alternative remedy. In my considered view, Mr Govilkar cannot oppose expeditious hearing of the election petition. There would be no prejudice to ladda 4wp-7103-11 respondent No.4, if respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the election petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously. Petition is, therefore, disposed of by passing the following order. ORDER. (a) Writ petition is disposed of as the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press prayer clause (a), (b) and (c). (b) In the interest of justice, respondent No.1 is directed to hear and dispose of the election petition filed by the petitioner challenging election of respondent No.4, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)