High Court asks Munde to file reply on Pawar’s petition in MCA president issu
The Bombay High Court has directed senior BJP leader Gopinath Munde to file his reply to a petition filed by NCP chief Sharad Pawar challenging a city civil court order temporarily restraining him from functioning as the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) president
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed senior BJP leader Gopinath Munde to file his reply to a petition filed by NCP chief Sharad Pawar challenging a city civil court order temporarily restraining him from functioning as the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) president.
Justice Anoop Mohta who heard the matter on December 13, posted it for hearing on December 16 and directed Munde and other respondents to file their replies to the petition.
Pawar had approached the high court earlier this month challenging the November 26 interim order passed by the lower court restraining him from functioning as MCA president.
The lower court’s order came after Munde moved an application seeking Pawar be stopped from functioning as MCA president as the hearing on his suit challenging the NCP chief’s election as MCA chief is pending.
The high court had on the last date of hearing stayed till December 17 the lower court’s order.
Munde in his suit had challenged the rejection of his nomination to contest the biennial presidential election terming it as illegal.
Munde’s nomination was rejected by the election officer on the basis of his residential status, observing that the address on his electoral registration was Beed.
Munde also prayed that Pawar, who was declared elected unopposed, should not take charge and, if he does, should not be allowed to discharge the functions of the president.
He has also named outgoing MCA president Ravi Savant, joint secretaries Nitin Dalal and P V Shetty, C T Singhvi (of Vile Parle club), who had raised the objection to Munde’s nomination, and Gorwadkar as respondents.
As per MCA rules, only a Mumbai resident can become president of the cricketing body.
Savant had said that as per a Bombay High Court order of 2006, a person could have residences in different cities, but he is considered to be a permanent resident of only that place where his name appears on the electoral rolls.