Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Baban s/o late Bhaurao Taywde, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondents in deleting his name as representative of Respondent No.4 – Ravi Commercial Urban Co-operative Bank Limited for the purposes of election of one Director from the constituency meant for such societies in Nagpur Division Commissionerate. The deletion was effected vide communication dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure 'C'), and the name of Respondent No.3, Mahendra Bhagwatkar, was substituted in his place. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to challenge the deletion. The court, after noticing the controversy, by an interim order directed that the nomination paper submitted by the petitioner shall not be rejected only on the ground that he has ceased to be representative of Respondent No.4 – society. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2, and the learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. The court found that the deletion of the petitioner's name was done without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The court held that such an action cannot be sustained and accordingly allowed the writ petition, quashing the communication dated 06.01.2010. The court directed that the petitioner's name be restored as the representative of Respondent No.4 – bank for the purposes of the election. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Deletion of name without hearing - The petitioner's name was deleted as representative of a cooperative bank for election purposes without any notice or opportunity of hearing - Held that such deletion violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deletion of the petitioner's name as representative of Respondent No.4 – Urban Cooperative Bank Limited for the purposes of election of one Director from constituency meant for such societies in Nagpur Division Commissionerate, without affording any opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure 'C') deleting the petitioner's name as representative of Respondent No.4 – bank is quashed. The petitioner's name shall be restored as the representative of Respondent No.4 – bank for the purposes of the election. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Deletion of name without notice
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 106
Writ Petition No. 130 of 2010
Shri P.C. Madkholkar with P.B. Patil for petitioner, Shri V.A. Thakare, AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri M.V. Samarth for respondents No. 3 & 4
Baban s/o late Bhaurao Taywde
State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Mumbai, Mahendra Bhagwatkar, Ravi Commercial Urban Co-operative Bank Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging deletion of petitioner's name as representative of a cooperative bank for election purposes.
Remedy Sought
Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to challenge deletion of petitioner's name as representative of Respondent No.4 – Urban Cooperative Bank Limited for election of Director.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's name was deleted as representative of Respondent No.4 – bank and substituted by Respondent No.3 without any notice or opportunity of hearing.
Issues
Whether the deletion of the petitioner's name as representative of Respondent No.4 – Urban Cooperative Bank Limited for the purposes of election of one Director from constituency meant for such societies in Nagpur Division Commissionerate, without affording any opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his name was deleted without any opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
Respondents No. 1 & 2 (State) and Respondents No. 3 & 4 supported the deletion.
Ratio Decidendi
The deletion of a person's name as representative without affording any opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. The court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash such action.
Judgment Excerpts
In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the action of respondents in deleting his name as representative of Respondent No.4 – Urban Cooperative Bank Limited for the purposes of election of one Director from constituency meant for such societies in Nagpur Division Commissionerate.
By said communication, the name of the petitioner has been deleted and name of Respondent No.3 has been added/substituted in his place.
This Court after noticing the controversy briefly, by interim order directed that the nomination paper submitted by the petitioner shall not be rejected only on the ground that he has ceased to be representative of Respondent No.4 – society.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court issued notice for final disposal on 11.01.2010. The matter was heard finally and rule was made returnable forthwith. The court passed an interim order directing that the nomination paper of the petitioner shall not be rejected only on the ground that he has ceased to be representative of Respondent No.4 – society. After hearing the parties, the court allowed the writ petition on 15.02.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
