Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARUN R.PEDNEKER
Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Due to urgency, heard finally.
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
In election disputes, the Returning Officer must allow candidates to rectify nomination defects; appellate courts must not interfere post symbol allotment without subserving electoral integrity.
The plenary powers of the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution to correct errors or deficiencies in the electoral process and the limitation of judicial intervention at ....
The rejection of a nomination paper after acceptance by the Returning Officer is arbitrary and unauthorized under election rules, which must adhere strictly to statutory mandates.
The right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the challenge to the rejection of nomination papers through a writ petition is not maintainable during the election process. The remedy of f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of election nomination rules, specifically the provisions of rule 21(1) read with rule 20(3) of the Election Rules, 2017, to ens....
Free and fair elections are the very foundation of democratic institutions and just as it is said that justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done, similarly elections should not only....
Election – Rejected nomination paper - Maintainability of Petition - Petition would not be maintainable against an order rejecting a nomination paper - Section 15 confers very wide powers on trial Ju....
Writ courts cannot intervene in nomination rejections during electoral processes under Article 226; jurisdiction is limited unless significant administrative errors invalidate the election process.
The court affirmed that challenges to election nominations must be made post-election through an election petition, as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
