JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Election Petition No. 10 of 2025 is filed in respect of election of Respondent No. 1 in the General Election held to the Legislative Assembly in Constituency 252 Pandharpur on 20.11.2024. Results were declared on 23.11.2024. Election Petition is filed on 06.01.2025 within limitation as stipulated under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, "RP Act"). Though Petitioner's relief is only for setting aside the election of Respondent No. 1, he has impleaded Respondent Nos. 2 to 23, all contesting candidates in the election. Respondent No. 1 is the returned candidate having secured 1,25,163 votes. Petitioner has secured third highest votes i.e. 10,217 votes.

2. Election programme of the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly for Constituency 252 Pandharpur declared by the Election Commission was as under:-

3. Grounds for challenge are enumerated in paragraph Nos.6[A] to 6[I] of the Petition. Most of the grounds overlap each other. Briefly stated, case of Petitioner is that the Returning Officer did not issue the mandatory Notification under Section 61A of the RP Act in respect of use of electronic voting machines for the said election and hence it is vitiated. Second ground alleged is that despite Petitioner having filed written application under Rule 93 of the CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES , 1961 (for short "the Rules") with Returning Officer, Petitioner was not supplied copies of Form 17C i.e. recording of election result and videography / CCTV footage of conduct of the entire election process on the date of election. Third ground alleged is that all EVM - VVPAT machines used in the election process were not maintained in compliance with mandatory guidelines as their serial numbers were not engraved in the metal for permanent identity. It is alleged that serial numbers were affixed on the machines in the form of detachable stickers which violated the mandatory guidelines prescribed under the RP Act read with its applicable Rules. Fourth ground alleged is that there was a sudden increase in the number of voters in the voters list within a span of four months prior to the election which resulted in manipulation of registration of voters and preparation of electoral roll which constituted act of corrupt practice. Fifth ground alleged is that voters' slips were not distributed in localities belonging to poorer sections and minority populated areas which also constituted as an act of corrupt practice.

4. By order dated 15.01.2025 Respondent Nos. 24 to 26 i.e. the Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra, the Returning Officer and the Election Commission of India who were impleaded as Respondent Nos. 24 to 26 were d