The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, has dismissed a group of complaints against the final notice about how voting areas are set up for local elections in Maharashtra. The court stressed the need to have elections on time and found no reason to change the voting area boundaries.
Abhijeet Diliprao Deshmukh and others filed complaints against the State of Maharashtra and its election officials. They were not happy with how the voting areas were set up for the upcoming local elections. The main issue was about the boundaries of these areas and how they were decided.
The people who complained argued that the boundaries were drawn unfairly, helping certain political parties. They said the process was random and not done according to the rules. Some even said their complaints were ignored, while others were upset that changes were made based on complaints from other parties.
The court, led by Judges Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade, made it clear that they couldn't interfere with the election process according to the Constitution. They pointed out that the Supreme Court had already stressed the need to conduct elections without delay. The court said:
"Including or excluding villages is a matter for the election authorities to decide, as long as they follow the rules."
The rules involved using the 2011 Census data, considering natural boundaries like rivers and roads, and ensuring population balance. The court found that these rules were followed, and any changes were made with proper reasoning.
Abhijeet Deshmukh's Case: He argued that his complaints about the voting areas in Kalamnuri, Hingoli, were ignored. The court found that his complaints were considered and addressed.
Other Cases: Many people complained about the inclusion and exclusion of specific villages in different voting areas. The court consistently found that the authorities followed the necessary procedures and rules.
The court dismissed all complaints, emphasizing that interfering with the process would delay the elections. They highlighted the Supreme Court's directive to hold elections promptly and saw no strong reason to get involved.
In short, the court's decision highlights the importance of following constitutional rules and the urgency of holding elections without unnecessary delays.
