[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Adv. Ajay Bhausaheb Pagare vs Sansare Prakash Marshal And Others on 28 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32748
WP 14246/25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14246 OF 2025
Adv. Ajay s/o. Bhausaheb Pagare,
Age 32 yrs., Occu. Legal Practitioner,
R/o. Gurukul Wasahat, Rahuri Factory,
Tq. Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar ......Petitioner.
Versus.
Sansare Prakash Marshal
Age 48 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. At Post Ambi Store,
Devlali Pravara, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar & Ors. .....Respondents.
....
Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sachindra Shetye a/w. Ms. Sharayu Dhanture, Advocate for respondent/
State Election Commission.
....
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Date : 28.11.2025
ORDER :
-
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned
judgment and order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-
3, Ahmednagar/appellate authority by which Review Petition No. 2/2025 is
allowed and nomination of respondent no. 1 is declared to be valid as a
candidate of BJP and the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Returning
Officer, rejecting the nomination of respondent No. 1 is quashed and set
aside and the order passed in Election Appeal No. 1/2025 is set
aside/recalled
2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are summarized in nutshell is
as under :-
Respondent No. 1/State Election Commission published notification
on 4.11.2025 for conducting the election of municipal council and nagar
panchayats of State of Maharashtra. From the election programme, it
appears that final voters list was published on 31.10.2025. Nomination
forms on the website were available from 10.11.2025 to 17.11.2025. The
date of acceptance of nomination forms was from 10.11.2025 to
17.11.2025 up to 3.00 p.m. Scrutiny of nomination forms and publication of
list of nominated candidates was on 18.11.2025. Last date for withdrawal of
nomination form after publishing valid nominated list of candidates was
between 19.11.2025 to 20.11.2025 up to 3.00 p.m. In case of any pending
appeal qua the acceptance or rejection of the nomination papers, then the
period would stand extended up till 25.11.2025. The last date for publishing
valid list of final nominated candidates and allotment of election symbols
was 26.11.2025. Date of election would be 2.12.2025. Date of counting and
declaring result would be 03.12.2025 and date of publication of election
result in the Government Gazette as per section 19 would be 10.12.2025.
3. It appears that respondent No. 1 has filed candidature from Ward No.
7A reserved for SC category in Municipal Council Pravara. Nomination of
respondent No. 1 was rejected by the Returning Officer by order dated
18.11.2025 as his form was not supported by five proposers. On that date
the Returning Officer has rejected 6 nomination forms and only 5 candidates
remained in fray. Candidates who had had filed nomination along with the
supporting 'A' form issued by the political party are required to be signed by
least by one proposer whereas the nominatin supported by 'B' form requires
signatures of 5 proposers in terms of Rule 12 (2) of the Maharashtra
Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Election Rules' for short).
4. In Ward No. 7A one Sachin Dattatraya Sarode was an authorized
candidate of BJP having 'A' Form and respondent No. 1 was dummy
candidate of the political party. On the date of scrutiny, nomination of
Sachin Dattatraya Sarode was accepted as valid and nomination of
respondent No. 1 as a dummy candidate was rejected by the Returning
Officer vide order dated 18.11.2025 as form of original candidate was
accepted. Against the rejection of nomination, on 19.11.2025 respondent
No. 1 filed Election Appeal No. 1/2025 before the District Court,
Ahmednagar under Rule 15 of the Election Rules. The learned District Judge
has dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 on 25.11.2025.
5. On 21.11.2025 Sachin Dattatraya Sarode, an authorized candidate of
political party withdrew his nomination. Respondent No. 1 filed Review
Petition No. 2/2025 before the District Court under section 114 r/w. Order
XLVII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and prayed to review of the order
passed in Election Appeal No. 1/2025 on the ground that Mr. Sachin Sarode,
the candidate of political party has withdrawn his candidature and the
appellant is the candidate of the political party. The learned District Judge
allowed the Review Petition No. 2/2025 filed by respondent No. 1 on
26.11.2025 and the order passed in Election Appeal No. 1/2025 is set
aside/recalled and the appeal is allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
provision to file review petition before the appellate authority under the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township
Act, 1965. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar and
others Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 2019 DGLS (SC) 1369
and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment has
held that it is well settled law that the power of review can be exercised
only when the statute provides for the same and in absence of any such
provision in the concerned statute, such power of review cannot be
exercised by the authority concerned.
7. The last date for publishing valid list of final nominated candidates
and allotment of election symbols was 26.11.2025. At this stage, issuing
notice and intervening in the matter would not be feasible as it would be
counter-productive to the election process. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has also relied upon the judgment and order of this Court in the
case of Suresh Pannalal Sankhala Vs. Returning Officer and Ors. decided on
16.3.2023 in Writ Petition No. 2688/2023 and submits that this Court can
interfere in the election process. However, the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the election of cooperative
societies and not of municipal council and may not be of any assistance in
the present case. In view of this limitation under Article 243 (ZG) of
Constitution of India and also considering the fact that election process has
proceeded substantially and any interference by this court would interfere in
the election process, this court in exercise of it's writ jurisdiction would not
entertain the present writ petition. The observations made by the Full Bench
of this Court at para No. 68 in the case of Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade and
Ors. Vs. State Election Commission, Mumbai reported in 2021 (2) Mh.L.J.
349, are relevant for this purpose and are noted below :-
"68. For the reasons aforesaid, while agreeing with the
view in Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade (supra), we answer the
fundamental question as formulated in paragraph 27 in the
negative. As a sequel thereto, we answer the questions
referred by the Division Bench in the manner as follows:-
(i) Allowing a challenge in a writ petition to rejection
of nomination form to contest an election and granting
the relief claimed by setting aside such order of
rejection is definitely not a step to sub-serve the
progress of election and/or facilitate its completion in
the sense enunciated in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and
explained in Ashok Kumar (supra) though it may not
always amount to intervention, obstruction or
protraction of the election;
(ii) Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India is a
bar for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution against an order passed by the
Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper and such
provision would clearly be attracted whenever a writ
petition is presented before a Court for its
consideration; and
(iii) The law laid down in Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade
(supra) represents the correct view of law;
consequently, we hold that the decision in Smt.
Mayaraju Ghavghave (supra) and Sudhakar s/o. Vitthal
Misal (supra) do not lay down the correct law; "
8. Considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade cited supra and considering all the
aspects of the matter, it appears that there are legal issues involved to be
decided. In view of the above, I hold that at this stage no interference
would be warranted in the election process. The petitioner is at liberty to
take steps as available in law by filing appropriate proceeding before
appropriate authority.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with above liberty.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
ssc/
