[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33551
1
wp14354&14355.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14354 OF 2025
. PRIYANKA YOGESH GAVHANE,
AGED 22 YEARS, OCCU. HOSEHOLD,
R/O. KAHARWADA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI - 400032
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER,
8TH FLOOR, NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
MADAM CAMA ROAD, HUTATMA RAJGURU CHOWK,
OPP. MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI - 400032
3. THE ELECTION RETURNING OFFICER,
GENERAL ELECTION OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
PATTHAN, TAL. PAITHAN, DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
4. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PAITHAN,
THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
TAL. PAITHAN, DIST. CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR
5. MONA JEETSINGH KARKOTAK,
AGED 28 YEARS, OCCU. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PARDESHIPURA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
6. NEETA BHARATSINGH KAYST,
AGED 45 YERAS, OCCU. SERVICE,
R/O. PARDESHIPURA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
7. ALKABAI GOPALSINGH PARDESHI,
AGED 55 YEARS, OCCU. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PARDESHIPURA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
2
wp14354&14355.2025
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR .. Respondents
....
AND
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 14355 OF 2025
. SIDHARTH GOPAL PARDESHI,
AGED 34 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS,
R/O. PARDESHIPURA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI - 400032
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER,
8TH FLOOR, NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
MADAM CAMA ROAD, HUTATMA RAJGURU CHOWK,
OPP. MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI - 400032
3. THE ELECTION RETURNING OFFICER,
GENERAL ELECTION OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
PATTHAN, TAL. PAITHAN, DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
4. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PAITHAN,
THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
TAL. PAITHAN, DIST. CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR
5. SANDIP JANARDHAN AHER,
AGED 40 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS,
R/O. UWAKE GALI, JAINPURA, PAITHAN,
TQ. PAITHAN, DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
6. GOPICHAND HARISHCHANDRA GAVHANE,
AGED 62 YEARS, OCCU. PENSIONER,
R/O. 367/A, NIMBARKA HOSPITAL,
3
wp14354&14355.2025
NAVIN KAVSAN, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
7. MANOJ AMBADAS DHAWLE,
AGED 30 YEARS, OCCU. AGRIL,
R/O. JAINPURA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
8. YOGESH ANKUSHSINGH PARDESHI,
AGED 40 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS,
R/O. PARDESHIPURA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
9. ASHVIN CHANDANSINGH LAKADHHAR,
AGED 26 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS,
R/O. PARDESHIPURA, PAITHAN, TQ. PAITHAN,
DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR
10. BAJRANG BHAUSINGH LIMBORE,
AGED 42 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS,
R/O. MADHAV NAGPAUR, PAITHAN,
TQ. PAITHAN, DIST. CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR .. Respondents
...
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Y. V. Kakade, Advocate
i/b. Mr. Z. H. Farooqui, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. R. B. Ade, Advocate for Respondent No.7 in WP/14354/2025
Mr. D. R. Korade, AGP for Respondent / State in WP/14354/2025
Mr. R. B. Ade, Advocate for Respondent No.10 in WP/14355/2025
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent / State in WP/14355/2025
Mr. Sachindra Shetye a/w. Ms. Sharayu Dhanture & Mr. Akshay
Pansare, Advocate for the State Election Commission
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Reserved on : 02.12.2025
Pronounced on : 04.12.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Due to urgency, heard
finally.
wp14354&14355.2025
2. Heard Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate along with Mr.
Y. V. Kakade, Advocate instructed by Mr. Z. H. Farooqui, Advocate
for Petitioners, Mr. R. B. Ade, Advocate for Respondent No.7 in
WP/14354/2025, Mr. D. R. Korade, AGP for Respondent / State in
WP/14354/2025, Mr. R. B. Ade, Advocate for Respondent No.10 in
WP/14355/2025, Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent / State in
WP/14355/2025, Mr. Sachindra Shetye along with Ms. Sharayu
Dhanture & Mr. Akshay Pansare, Advocate for the State Election
Commission.
3. By the present petitions the petitioners challenge the
impugned orders dated 28.11.2025, passed by the appellate court
under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar
Panchayats Election Rules, 1966 (for brevity " the Election Rules"),
whereby the nominations of the petitioners i.e. Sidharth Gopal
Pardeshi (WP/14355/2025) and Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane
(WP/14354/2025) are rejected by setting aside the orders of the
Returning Officer accepting the nomination of the petitioners filed
for the election of Ward No.6 (Seat 6-A & 6-B) of Paithan Municipal
Council. The order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the appellate court
in Election Petition No.6/2025 was rectified on 29.11.2025 by
observing that in the title cause of the Judgment, names of
respondents No.3 to 8 are mistakenly copied from other election
wp14354&14355.2025
appeal. As it is a typing mistake, name of respondents no.3 to 8 are
deleted and respondents no.3 to 5 are corrected and, accordingly,
respondent no.3's name Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane was mentioned
in the cause title and her nomination was set aside at the instance
of the objector / appellant Alkabai.
4. Although, this court would be very slow in entertaining
writ petition against the orders of the Returning Officer or the
appellate authority in exercise of writ jurisdiction, however, on
account of intervening event of postponement of election and
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case it has become
necessary for this court to examine the issues raised and deal with
the same.
5. The elections are already postponed by the Notification
dated 29.11.2025, wherein it is mentioned that wherever the
appellate court has passed orders under Rule 15 of the Election
Rules after 22.11.2025 i.e. on 23.11.2025 or thereafter the
nominated candidates did not have the opportunity to withdraw
their nomination and in all these cases the elections are stayed and
a fresh election programme would be issued on 04.12.2025,
wherein last date of withdrawal of candidature would be
wp14354&14355.2025
10.12.2025 up till 03:00 p.m. and the allotment of symbols would
be on 11.12.2025 and the date of polling would be on 20.12.2025.
6. Both these petitions are taken up together as they arise
from identical facts and from the same ward of the Paithan
Municipal Council. The facts are taken from Writ Petition No.14355
of 2025.
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
7. On the direction of the State Election Commission, the
State Government published a Gazette Notification dated
30.09.2025 in exercise of powers under Sections 9, 10 and 341B of
the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for brevity " the Act"), wherein,
the State demarcated the number of wards of the Paithan
municipal area as given in the schedule for the Paithan Municipal
Council (The schedule provides that the total number of councillors
to be elected for Paithan Municipal Council are 25, 2 councillors
each for 11 wards, 3 councillors for 1 ward and total wards being
12). We are concerned with Ward No.6 of which the population is
3257. The location is bounded as given in the said notification dated
30.09.2025 and the number of councillors to be elected are 2.
Although, there are 2 councillors to be elected from Ward No.6,
wp14354&14355.2025
there is no sub-division of the ward and both the councillors are to
be elected from the same ward by the same electorate.
On direction of the State Election Commission, on
28.10.2025, The District Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
issued Notification and finalized the reservation of the wards in
terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and here we are
concerned with Serial No.11 and 12, Ward No.6, where seat
numbers are given for Ward No.6; as 6-A and 6-B. 6-A is for
Backward Class of Citizens (Female) and 6-B is for General.
8. It is also to be noted that in a general notification /
order dated 25.02.2013, issued by the State Election Commission,
it is provided as under:
"ब) राज्य निवडणूक आयोगाच्या क्र. एसइसी/आरपीपी/ २००९/सीआर-
४९/ का. ११ दि. ३१/०३/ २००९ (महाराष्ट्र निवडणूक चिन्ह (आरक्षण व
वाटप) आदेश २००९) च्या आदेशासोबतच्या जोडपत्र दोन मध्ये अंशतः
सुधारणा करण्यात येत असून सुधारित जोडपत्र- १ व जोडपत्र- २ या
आदेशासोबत जोडण्यात आले आहे. यामुळे, महानगरपालिका व नगरपालिका
/ नगरपंचायत निवडणुकांकरिता राजकीय पक्षातर्फे पुरस्कृत करण्यात
आलेल्या उमेदवाराने विहित जोडपत्र- १ व जोडपत्र- २ मधील सूचनापत्र
नामनिर्देशनपत्र दाखल करावयाच्या अखेरच्या दिवशी दपु ारी ३.०० वाजेपर्यंत
सादर करणे आवश्यक राहील"
In the said Notification, the State Election Commission
has provided improvised format form of Jodpatra-1 (hereinafter
mentioned as "Annexure-1") and Jodpatra-2 (hereinafter
mentioned as "Annexure-2"). It is mentioned that for the elections
wp14354&14355.2025
of the Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats the candidates
have to annexe Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 latest by the last date
of nomination by 03:00 p.m. In the instant case, it would
17.11.2025 by 03:00 p.m.
9. The State Election Commission published Notification
on 04.11.2025 for conducting elections to the Municipal Councils
and Nagar Panchayats. The Nomination Forms were available on
the website from 10.11.2025 to 17.11.2025. The date of acceptance
of nomination forms was from 10.11.2025 to 17.11.2025 by 03:00
p.m. The scrutiny of nomination forms and publication of list of
validly nominated candidates was 18.11.2025 from 11:00 a.m. The
last date of withdrawal of nomination forms was between
19.11.2025 to 21.11.2025 by 03:00 p.m. However, wherever the
appeals are preferred against rejection or acceptance of
nominations before the appellate authority / court; after 3 days
time was granted up till the third day of withdrawal was permitted
and the last date being 25.11.2025. On 26.11.2025, the candidates
were allotted election symbols and on 02.12.2025 is the date of
polling.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner Sidharth Gopal
Pardesh in Writ Petition No.14355 of 2025 has filed his nomination
wp14354&14355.2025
from the Prabhag / Ward No.6-B and has given his Annexure-2 i.e.
the authorization from the political party of Ward No.6-A. The same
was filed on 17.11.2025. On 18.11.2025, the Returning Officer suo-
motu rejected the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that
the authorization i.e. Annexure-2 was from Ward No.6-A and the
nomination filed was for 6-B. The petitioner filed appeal under Rule
15 of the Election Rules being Election Petition No.1/2025 against
the order of the Returning Officer dated 18.11.2025. It was
contended that the petitioner was not given hearing and
opportunity to rectify the errors. The appellate court noticed that
the appellant has filed nomination for election from Ward No.6,
Seat No.6-B. He has deposited requisite amount for contesting the
election. Political party has authorized him to contest the election.
However, the form issued by the political party i.e. Annexure-2 if
for Ward No.6-A and, thus, the Returning Officer rejected the
nomination of the petitioner as he had not filed Annexure-2 of
Ward No.6, Seat No.6-B. It was found that the Returning Officer on
his own motion had rejected the nomination and, thus, the
appellate court held that respondent no.1 being the Returning
Officer shall scrutinize the nomination paper of the petitioner
afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
The said order by the appellate court was passed on 24.11.2025.
wp14354&14355.2025
11. On 25.11.2025, the petitioner provided fresh Annexure-
2 for Ward 6, Seat 6-B to the Returning Officer. However, it was not
taken on record as the last date for filing the same was already
over on 17.11.2025. The Returning Officer passed a fresh order on
25.11.2025, wherein she has taken into consideration the earlier
Annexure-2, which was filed along with the nomination on
17.11.2025 and accepted the nomination of the petitioner on
25.11.2025. Respondent No.10 - Bajrang Bhausingh Limbore filed
appeal under Rule 15 of the Election Rules, on 25.11.2025, which
was registered on 26.11.2025. Meanwhile, on 26.11.2025, the
petitioner along with other nominated candidates were granted
election symbols and the list of nominated candidates along with
symbols was published. In the appeal filed by respondent no.10
notice was issued and, as such, the present petitioner filed
objection contending that the appeal ought to have been filed and
decided on 25.11.2025. The appeal being registered on 26.11.2025,
the same is not maintainable as in terms of the election programme
election symbols are already allotted. The court on consideration of
the contention of the parties, observed that the petitioner did not
have the authorization of the political party as far as Ward No.6,
Seat No.6-B is concerned and, held that the nomination of the
petitioner ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer.
Thus, by impugned order dated 28.11.2025, the nomination of the
wp14354&14355.2025
petitioner was rejected by the appellate court. Similar order was
also passed in the connected appeal, which is challenged in the
connected Writ Petition No.14354 of 2025. However, the appellate
court order was further corrected in the case of Priyanka Gavhane
by further order dated 29.11.2025.
SUBMISSIONS:-
12. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated
28.11.2025, on the grounds hereinafter referred. Mr. V. D. Sapkal,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that
the appellate powers under Rule 15 of the Election Rules could not
have been exercised by the appellate court after 25.11.2025 and
the limitation on the power of the appellate court has to be inferred
from the Rules. The last date of the allotment of symbols is
26.11.2025 and that no adjudication by the appellate court is
warranted after 25.11.2025. Once the date of allotment of symbol
has passed by and the allotment of symbols is made, the appellate
court has to keep it's hands off and remit the appellant to seek
remedy by way of an election petition. It is also the mandate of the
Constitution of India under Article 245ZG. He submits that the
order being passed by the appellate court after allotment of the
symbols would amount to interference in the election process and
that the same could have not been passed by the appellate court
wp14354&14355.2025
under Rule 15. He also submits that if an indefinite time frame is
given to the appellate court to adjudicate, then the order could be
passed by the appellate court one day prior to the elections setting
aside the nomination and a political party may remain
unrepresented. In the instant case, both the candidates are from
one political party and their candidature would be removed by the
orders of the appellate court. He submits that the orders passed by
the appellate court is beyond jurisdiction and illegal.
The second submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that under Rule 12(2) and in view of the above noted
Notification dated 25.02.2013, the nomination form should be
presented along with Annexure-2 before the last date of
nomination. Rule 12 particularly use the word "Ward". In the
instant case, we refer to Ward No.6 and there are 2 candidates to be
elected from the same ward i.e. Ward No.6. There is no further sub-
division of ward in terms of the Act and Rules.
The learned counsel for the petitioner points out
Section 10 (2) of the Act and, submits that, each ward would elect
only 1 councillor. However, amendment is brought in the year
2022, whereby it is provided that after the commencement of the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial
Townships (Amendment) Act, 2021, in respect to the general
elections of Municipal Councils each ward shall elect as far as
wp14354&14355.2025
possible 2 councillors but not more than 3 councillors and each
voter shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2)
of section 14, be entitled to cast the same number of votes, as the
number of Councillors to be elected in his ward.
He submits that the amendment of 2021 is brought into
effect on 25.01.2022. There is no change in the ward. The change is
as regards the number of councillors that can be elected from the
ward. Prior to the amendment of 2021 from the ward only 1
councillor could be elected and by virtue of the amendment
multiple councillors are elected from the same ward and each voter
would cast multiple votes depending upon the number of
councillors to be elected. He submits that there is no sub-division of
the ward and that no distinction can be made between the
candidates of the same ward by sub-division of the wards as there
is no sub-division of ward under the Act or the Rules. Thus, the
distinction made on the basis of seats in the instant case of 6-A and
6-B is the superficial one. There are 2 councillors to be elected from
Ward No.6, 1 from the reserved category and one from the non-
reserved category. Even, the Annexure-2 given by the Election
Commission only refers to the Ward, it does not refer to the seat
number. So mentioning of the seat number in addition to the ward
number is merely a superfluous exercise. He further submits that
in the instant case it is to be seen that the candidates have filled
wp14354&14355.2025
nomination in Ward No.6 for the reserved or unrserved seat and it
could have suffice the purpose and the form (Annexure-2) attached
would be only of Ward No.6 for reserved or unreserved category.
There is large confusion after the amendment of the year 2021. He
submits that the Annexure-2 (Jodpatra) provided by the Election
Commission are of 2013, whereas the seat bifurcation is done by
the Collector on account of the provisions of Section 10 as an
independent exercise for the purpose of reservation although there
is no separate concept of seat within the ward. He submits that
even otherwise the same is superfluous and both the candidates in
the instant case has given their Annexure-2; one in the women
reserved category and another in open category of Ward No.6. of
the same political party and both the Annexure-2 forms ought to
have been accepted. Mentioning of 'A' or 'B' in Ward No.6 is of not
much relevance and ought to have been ignored or permitted to be
rectified.
13. Per contra, Mr. Sachindra Shetye along with Ms.
Sharayu Dhanture & Mr. Akshay Pansare, Advocates for the State
Election Commission submits that, Paithan Municipal Council
follows a multi-member ward system wherein every ward elects
two Councillors one from seat "A" and one from seat "B". By the
reservation order dated 28.10.2025, Ward No. 6-A was reserved for
wp14354&14355.2025
Backward Class of Citizens (Women) and Ward No. 6-B was kept
General (Open). The last date and time for filing nomination papers
was 17.11.2025 up to 3.00 p.m. The Petitioner filed his nomination
on 16.11.2025 from the reserved seat 6-B, which was for General
category without the authorization letter in Form "B" issued by the
political party which fielded him. On 17.11.2025, at 2.30 pm., the
Petitioner submitted the Forms "A" and "B" issued by the political
party which fielded him. In Form "B" (communication of the party
authorising the candidate and the symbol), the party had clearly
mentioned Ward No. 6-A (which was reserved for Backward Class
of Citizens (Women). During scrutiny on 18.11.2025, the Returning
Officer rejected the nomination form because the Nomination Form
of the Petitioner was filed for seat 6-B, the "AB" form filed by the
Petitioner mentioned that he was authorized to file his nomination
from seat 6-A. The petitioner preferred Election Petition No.
01/2025. The learned District Judge, by order dated 24.11.2025,
remanded the matter to the Returning Officer for fresh
consideration on the ground that the Petitioner was not afforded
an opportunity for hearing. In fact, every candidate is given an
acknowledgment when he/she submits his/her nomination form in
which the date and time of scrutiny is mentioned. No separate
notice is issued to any candidate. The candidate has a choice to be
present or remain absent. On 25.11.2025 (i.e., seven days after the
wp14354&14355.2025
last date of nomination had expired), the Petitioner submitted a
fresh Form "B" now mentioning Ward No. 6-B, which ought not to
have been accepted. The Returning Officer accepted the Form "B"
and held the Nomination of the Petitioner to be valid on the same
day, which is a violation of paragraph 20 (2) (d) of the Order dated
5/5/2025 of the State Election Commission. This acceptance was
challenged by another contesting candidate (Bajrang Bhausingh
Limbore) in Election Petition No. 05/2025. The learned District
Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated
28.11.2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the acceptance of the
petitioner's nomination. The above-mentioned petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 28/11/2025 by which the appeal
was allowed and the nomination form of the Petitioner was
rejected. It is further submitted that Form "B" must specifically and
correctly mention the particular seat/ward for which the candidate
is set up by the party. If there is any mismatch between the seat
mentioned in the nomination form and the seat mentioned in Form
"B", the nomination becomes invalid. No fresh or corrected Form "B"
can be accepted after the expiry of the last date and time fixed for
filing of nominations (i.e., after 3.00 p.m. on 17.11.2025). The
remand order passed in the first appeal did not and could not
extend the statutory time limit for filing or curing defects in
nomination papers. In the present case, the original Form "B"
wp14354&14355.2025
submitted on 16.11.2025 was admittedly for Ward No. 6-A (BCC-
Women). The correct Form "B" for Ward No. 6-B was submitted only
on 25.11.2025, which is impermissible in law. The Returning
Officer, therefore, had no jurisdiction to accept the new Form "B"
and the nomination on 25.11.2025, and the learned District Judge
has rightly set aside that acceptance vide the impugned order
dated 28.11.2025.
14. Similar are the submissions made by Mr. R. B. Ade,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents / original appellants
before the first appellate court.
CONSIDERATION & CONCLUSION:-
15. Having considered the rival submissions, the questions
that arise for consideration are as under:-
{1} Whether the appellate court could not have exercised
powers under Rule 15 of the Election Rules to set aside the
nomination of the petitioners after the allotment of symbols to the
nominated candidates ?
{2} Whether the Returning Officer ought to have given an
opportunity to the petitioners / nominated candidates to rectify the
Annexure-2 forms in support of nomination on the date of
scrutiny ?
wp14354&14355.2025
{3} Whether the nomination forms are rightly rejected by
the appellate court ?
{4} Whether this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction
should interfere with the orders of the appellate court or should
relegate the petitioners to the remedy as prescribed under the
Act ?
16. For ready reference the provisions of the Act and Rules
relevant for this matter are noted below:
Section 10 (2) Proviso of the Act
"10. Division of municipal area into wards and
reservation of wards for women, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes:
...
(2) Each of the wards shall elect only one Councillor.
Provided that, after the commencement of the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats
and Industrial Townships (Amendment) Act, 2021, in
respect of the general elections to the Municipal
Councils, each of the wards shall elect as far as possible
two Councillors but not more than three Councillors,
and each voter shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (2) of section 14, be entitled to
cast the same number of votes, as the number of
Councillors to be elected in his ward."
Rule 12(2) of the Election Rules
"(2) Every nomination paper shall be in the form
specified by the State Commission which shall be
supplied by the Returning Officer to any voter on
demand. The nomination paper duly completed and
wp14354&14355.2025
signed by the candidate and by one voter of the ward as
proposer in case the candidate is sponsored by a
recognised political party, or by five voters of the ward
as proposers in case of any other candidates. The
nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning
Officer by such candidates either in person or by his
proposer, on or before the date appointed under sub-
rule (1) of Rule 4 during the time and at the place
specified thereunder."
Rule 13(2) of the Election Rules
"(2) The Returning Officer shall examine the
nomination papers and decide all objections which may
be made to any nomination, and may, either on such
objection or on his own motion, after such summary
inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any
nomination paper on any of the following grounds, that
is to say,-
(a) that the candidate is not qualified or is disqualified
for election under the Act.
(b) that the proposer is not qualified to nominate the
candidate;
(c) that there has been a failure to comply with any of
the provisions of the Act or prescribed by these rules;
(d) that the candidate or proposer is not identical with
the person whose electoral number is specified in the
nomination paper as the number of such candidate or
proposer, as the case may be;
(e) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer
on the nomination paper is not genuine or is obtained
by fraud."
Rule 13(4) of the Election Rules
"(4) The Returning Officer shall not reject any
nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is
not of a substantial character."
wp14354&14355.2025
Rule 13(5) of the Election Rules
"(5) The Returning Officer shall hold the scrutiny on
the date appointed in this behalf under clause (d) of
sub-rule (1) of rule 4 and shall not allow any
adjournment of the proceedings, except when such
proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or
open violence or by causes beyond his control :
Provided that, in case any objection is
raised by the Returning Officer or is made by any other
person, the candidate concerned may be allowed time
to rebut it not later than the next day, and the
Returning Officer shall record his decision on the date
to which the proceedings have been adjourned."
Rule 13(6) of the Election Rules
"(6) The Returning Officer-shall endorse on each
nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting
the same and, if the nomination paper is rejected, shall
record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for
such rejection."
Rule 15(1) of the Election Rules
"(1) An appeal shall lie to the District Judge of the
district in which the municipal area is situated as
herein provided from any decision of a Returning
Officer accepting or rejecting a nomination paper."
Rule 15(2) of the Election Rules
"(2) Any candidate aggrieved by a decision of the
Returning Officer accepting or rejecting a nomination
paper, may present an appeal therefrom to the District
Judge within a period of three days from the date of
publication of the list of validly nominated candidates :
Provided that, where an appeal is
presented, such candidate shall, not later than 3 o'clock
in the afternoon of the day next following the date of
wp14354&14355.2025
presentation of the appeal to the District Judge, give a
notice of the appeal to the Returning Officer."
Rule 15(7) of the Election Rules
"(7) Every appeal under this rule shall be heard dedien
diem and disposed of by the District Judge as
expeditiously as possible, and his decision shall be
communicated forthwith to the Returning Officer."
Rule 15(9) of the Election Rules
"(9) In every case where notice of any appeal has been
given to the Returning Officer, he shall, upon receipt of
the communications of the District Judge referred to in
sub-rule (7), republish by affixing to his notice-board
the list of validly nominated candidates after revising
it, if necessary in conformity with the decision of the
District Judge."
Rule 15(10) of the Election Rules
"(10) The decision of the District Judge on appeal
under this rule, and subject only to such decision, the
decision of the Returning Officer, accepting or rejecting
the nomination of a candidate shall be final and
conclusive and shall not be called in question in any
Court."
17. With respect to the issue raised as regards the
jurisdiction of the first appellate court to decide the pending appeal
within certain time frame, sub-rules 2, 7 and 9 of Rule 15 are of
relevance. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 provides that any candidate
aggrieved by the decision of the Returning Officer of rejection or
acceptance of nomination can prefer an appeal to the District
wp14354&14355.2025
Judge within a period of 3 days from the date of publication of list
of validly nominated candidates. In the instant case, the
nomination of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 18.11.2025. In
the appeal preferred, the order of the Retuning Officer was set
aside and the matter remitted back for fresh scrutiny to the
Returning Officer. (Whether the appellate court could have
remitted the matter back is not an issue before me and, therefore, I
have not dealt with this aspect of the matter.) Thereafter, on
remand, the Returning Officer passed order dated 25.11.2025
accepting the nomination of the petitioner and on 25.11.2025,
appeal was preferred by one of the candidate and the same was
registered on 26.11.2025. Sub-rule 9 of Rule 15 provides that the
Returning Officer after receipt of communication of the District
Judge referred in sub-rule 7 shall republish by affixing to his
notice board the list of validly nominated candidates after revising
it, if necessary in conformity with the decision of the District
Judge.
18. The election symbols are given to the candidates on
26.11.2025. The decision in appeal is rendered on 28.11.2025 and,
thereafter corrected on 29.11.2025 in one of the case. After the
order is passed in appeal under Rule 15, the Returning Officer is
expected to re-publish the list of nominated candidates by deleting
wp14354&14355.2025
the names of the petitioners. Publication of the validly nominated
list is expected before the last date of withdrawal of nomination.
However, the election process has proceeded further and on
26.11.2025 election symbols are allotted and interference at this
stage by the appellate court under Rule 15 of the Election Rules
would disturb the entire election programme. As such, any
decision by the District Court in appeal under Rule 15 upsetting the
order of the Returning Officer has to be necessarily restricted
before the last date of withdrawal of nomination allowing the
candidates, if required, to withdraw their candidature and the
decision given in appeal cannot be implemented in any event after
the election symbols are allotted to the validly nominated
candidates. After the election symbols are allotted to the validly
nominated candidates and the list is published, the deletion of the
name of the candidates would create confusion in the electorate.
List of nominated candidates along with their election symbols is a
last part of election programme before the elections and, there can
be no change of candidates even by withdrawal as the electorate
and all concerned acts upon list of candidates along with their
symbols. Although, there is no time limit provided in the appeal
provision to pass order, implementation of any order passed under
Rule 15 of the Election Rules by the appellate court reversing the
order of the Returning Officer after allotment of the symbols and
wp14354&14355.2025
publication of the list of the nominated candidates along with their
symbols should be restricted. The only remedy for wrongful
acceptance or rejection of nomination after the date of publication
of list of candidates with their allotted symbols is an election
petition as provided in the Act.
However, in the instant case, the elections are
postponed as by a general order, where decisions are taken by the
appellate court under Rule 15 of the Election Rules after
22.11.2025 i.e. from 23.11.2025, as the nominated candidates did
not have time for withdrawal of their nominations. The last date for
withdrawal of nomination is 10.12.2025 and allotment of symbol is
11.12.2025. As such, the order of the appellate court in the instant
case under Rule 15 can be implemented if not interfered with by
the writ court.
19. Coming to the next issue, on merits in the case, whether
the appellate court has rightly exercised it's authority under Rule
15 of the Election Rules by rejecting the nominations of the
petitioners by setting aside the order of the Returning Officer and
whether this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction ordinarily can
interfere with the order of the appellate court. This court would not
entertain writ petition if it disturbs an ongoing election process,
however, there is no complete bar to entertain the writ petition,
wp14354&14355.2025
where the interference would subserve the election process. The
general principle of law in this regard is that the power of the writ
court to exercise the writ jurisdiction is not completely barred in
entertaining the writ petition if it subserves the election process.
20. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Karmaveer
Tulshiram Autade and others Vs. State Election Commission,
Mumbai and others, 2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 349, after elaborately
discussing the relevant Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgments, more
particularly, at paragraph no.46, has observed as under:
"46. The essence of the above discussion is that a writ
petition could be barred if it seeks to call in question a
step in election, but if the approach to the Court is to
facilitate free and fair completion of election, such
approach would not be barred."
21. In the instant case, the elections are postponed and any
interference at this stage for valid reasons would not affect the on
going election process. The elections are postponed by the election
authority themselves and, as such, this court would entertain the
petition if there is a grave miscarriage of justice and if the
interference would subserve the cause of free and fair elections.
22. The nomination is filed by the petitioner (Sidharth
Pardeshi) for Seat 6-B, whereas he has filed has filed Annexure-2
along with the nomination for Seat 6-A and vice-versa in case of
wp14354&14355.2025
connected writ petition. It is to be seen that in Ward No.6; 2
Councillors to be elected by the same electorate. One for reserved
candidate women and another for unrserved candidate. 6-A relates
to "Backward Class Citizen (Female) and 6-B relates to General.
The candidate Mr. Sidharth Pardeshi is a male candidate who has
given his nomination for 6-B and the form of the political party
supporting it is of 6-A. The writ petitioner Priyanka Gavhane filed
her nomination for 6-A and supporting form (Annexure-2) is of 6-
B. Errors have crept into the Annexure-2 of the petitioners.
Although, there is no sub-division of wards in the Act or the
Election Rules, the Notification dated 28.10.2025, issued for
reservation purpose under Section 10 of the Act shows the final
reservation for the Municipal Council, Paithan in Annexure-7 and
8, wherein at serial no.11 and 12 Seat No.6-A is for Backward Class
of Citizen (Female) and and 6-B is for General. Both the candidates
have filed the nominations for 1 seat and the Annexure-2 was for a
different seat from the same ward. After the amendment of 2021
made to Section 10 as noted above, there are no changes made in
the Rules or to the Annexure-2 form issued by the State Election
Commission. The Notification of the District Collector under Section
10 for the purpose of reservation may be of some relevance, since,
the Notification is issued after the amendment Act of 2021 and
with the directions of the State Election Commission and the seat
wp14354&14355.2025
numbers are given in each ward where multiple councillors are
elected from the wards. The petitioners have also filed their
nomination from Ward No.6 with it's seat number, as 6-B / 6-A.
23. Thus, the objection of the petitioner that as there is no
sub-division of ward and the election being of same Ward No.6, the
Annexure-2 of Ward No.6 is sufficient enough to accept nomination
cannot be accepted as in a given situation it may create conflicting
situation as multiple candidates may claim Annexure-2 in their
support for the same seat in the ward. Annexure-2 has to be
specific to the nominated seat of the ward. Since, the nomination
form is specific to Ward No.6, Seat No.6-B, the Annexure-2 in
support should also be of 6-B.
24. Coming to the next issue, whether the Returning Officer
should have given opportunity to rectify the defect in the
Annexure-2, at the time of scrutiny, an identical fact situation
arose in a case before the Supreme Court, in the case of Rakesh
Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar reported in (1999) 2 SCC 489. The facts in
that case are that the Election Commission of India had notified
election programme to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. As per the
programme fixed, last date of filing of nominations was 20.1.1997,
scrutiny of nominations was to be held on 21.1.1997 and the last
wp14354&14355.2025
date for withdrawal of candidate/candidature was 23.1.1997. The
respondent therein had submitted his nomination paper on
20.1.1997 at 12.10 p.m. as a candidate set up by the BJP along
with Form A and B, indicating his candidature set up by the
political party. Another candidate had also filed nomination as BJP
candidate supported by A and B Forms for the same constituency.
So also another candidate has filed dummy candidature as
substitute candidate of BJP political party. When the nomination
papers came up for scrutiny before the Returning Officer, suo moto
objection was raised by the Returning Officer that the political
party BJP had set up more than one candidate in the election and
therefore, none could be treated as candidate set up by the
recognised political party and, thus, rejected the nomination
papers of all the three candidates. One of the candidate had applied
to the Returning Officer to give him time of 24 hours to produce
official confirmation of his candidature from the political party.
However, the said request was also rejected by Returning Officer.
The same was challenged before the High Court by filing writ
petition. However, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the High
Court on the ground that the alternate remedy is available to the
petitioner to file an election petition and he can avail the same.
After declaration of election results, election petition was filed by
the respondent therein challenging the election of the returned
wp14354&14355.2025
candidate on the ground of wrongful rejection of his nomination
papers and the same was allowed by the High Court.
25. The said order of High Court was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the proviso of section 36(5) of
Representation of People Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that Returning Officer should have allowed time to rebut the
objection raised. It is observed that in case an objection is raised
during the scrutiny to the validity of a nomination paper of a
candidate, the Returning Officer has to give an opportunity to the
candidate concerned to rebut the objection by giving him time 'not
later than the next day'. In view of the proviso to section 36(5) of
the Representation of People Act after scrutiny of the nomination
paper, Returning Officer is not expected to reject the candidature
without giving an opportunity to the candidate who is capable to
met with objection.
26. Rule 13 of the Election Symbol Order was also noted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that a candidate shall be deemed to be
set up by a political party if and only if a candidate has made a
declaration to that effect in his nomination paper, a notice in
writing to that effect has not later than 3.00 p.m. on the last date
for making nominations been delivered to the Returning Officer of
wp14354&14355.2025
the constituency and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State and the
said notice is signed by the President, the Secretary or any other
office bearer of the party and the President, Secretary or such
other office-bearer is authorised by the party to send such notice.
Thus, the Supreme Court had also noted that, where the candidate
is set up by a political party nomination paper must include a
declaration by the candidate to the effect that he has been set up by
a recognised political party, be supported by a notice (Forms A and
B) duly signed by the office bearers of the party. Although, form A
and B was required to be filed with the nomination form, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that opportunity ought to have
been given to the candidates to rectify the defect at the stage of
scrutiny. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of the
High Court setting aside the election of the returned candidate on
account of wrongful rejection of nomination papers of the
respondent therein.
27. Proviso to Rule 13 of the Election Rules is identical to
proviso of section 36 Rule 5 of the Representation of People's Act.
The Returning Officer has to allow the time of not later than the
next day to rebut the objection raised by the Returning Officer.
Although, the petitioner had filed nomination for ward No. 6, Seat
6-B, and his supporting Annexure-2 was of 6-A and vice-versa in
wp14354&14355.2025
connected writ petition, opportunity ought to have been given to
the petitioners to clarify / rectify the error, in view of the judgment
of Rakesh Kumar cited supra given in identical facts situation. On
the matters being remanded by the appellate court the petitioners
had provided the Returning Officer with rectified Annexure-2 from
the same political party. The same is not taken on record. However,
the same ought to have been taken on record and accepted.
However, the Returning Officer has rightly accepted the
nomination forms of the petitioners as being contesting from the
Ward No.6, Seat 6-B and Ward No.6, Seat 6-A in the case of
connected Writ Petition No.14354 of 2025. The appellate court
erred in setting aside the order of the Returning Officer accepting
nomination of the petitioners for Ward No.6, Seat 6-B and 6-A.
28. The list of validly nominated candidates is yet to be
published on account of postponement of elections of Ward No.6
(Seat A & B) along with other similarly placed cases. Interference
at this stage would subserve the election process and not interfere
with the same. The impugned orders passed by the appellate court
are patently illegal.
29. As such, it is hereby directed that the impugned orders
of the appellate court are set aside and the acceptance of
wp14354&14355.2025
nomination by the Returning Officer for each of the candidates /
petitioners in the writ petitions is maintained. The rectified form
(Annexure-2) given by the political party be taken on record by the
Returning Officer and the list shall be published of the nominated
candidates by including the names of the petitioners in both the
petitions.
30. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Writ
Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
marathe
