2026:BHC-AS:268 Digitally signed SANTOSH b S y U S B A H N A T S O H SH 501-WPST152-2026.DOC SUBHASH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date:

2026.01.06

21:15:16 +0530 Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 152 OF 2026 Ranjit Dilip Khirid ...Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Cricket Association Through Its President And Ors …Respondents Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, a/w Sumit Sonare, for the Petitioner.

Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, AGP for the State.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 5^th JANUARY, 2O26 Oral Order:-

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the Electoral Officer, Maharashtra Cricket Association, whereby the nomination form which was filed by the petitioner for being elected to the post of Councilor, under the category the ‘Affiliated Clubs’ came to be rejected.

3. The Electoral Officer rejected the nomination form filed by the petitioner as the petitioner claimed to be the authorized representative of United Sports Club and Mr. Prabhakar Pandurang More, who claimed to be the sole proprietor of United Sports Club, filed an application before the Electoral Officer with the contention that he had authorized one Parag More to represent the United Sports Club, and not the petitioner. Upon perusal of the list of MCA’s Full Members and the authorized representatives of the Full Members, which was placed before him, the Electoral Officer came to a prima facie view that as per MCA’s record, Mr. Parag More was the authorized representative of the United Sports Club and the name of the petitioner was not reflected as the United Sports Club’s representative.

4. Mr Bhargude, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is a dispute between the parties as to who is the authorized representative of the United Sports Club. Attention of the Court was invited to an order dated 5 December 2025 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune, in an application filed by the petitioner to de- register the United Sport, bearing Registration No.F- 16689/1999. The said application was rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. However, the opponent - Prabhakar Pandurang More, the person, who had raised objection to the nomination of the Petitioner were restrained from using the name of the society bearing registration No.F-16689/1999, namely United Sport. Therefore, it was submitted that the Electoral Officer could not have been rejected the nomination form of he petitioner. It was also submitted that no effective opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.

5. It is trite, a wrongful acceptance or rejection of nomination form is ordinarily a matter of election dispute to be raised, post the declaration of result. The Court is not expected to intervene, at this stage. 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, would not be a step to sub-serve the progress of election and may even impede the orderly conclusion of election process.

6. The impugned order indicates that the Electoral Officer has formed a prima facie opinion on the basis of the material on record. It does not appear that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the record maintained by the MCA of its Full Members and authorized representatives of full members.

7. Mr. Bhargude further submitted that the order passed by the Electoral Officer may impinge upon the rights of the petitioner in the other proceedings before other forum. The rejection of the nomination form is qua the election to the post of the Councilor under the category the Affiliated Clubs of MCA. Thus, the rejection of the nomination form would not impinge upon the rights of the petitioner in other proceedings before other forums.

8. All contentions in that regard are kept open for consideration in appropriate proceedings and this Court may not be unde