IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 7 OF 2024 IN APPLICATION (ST) 27786 OF 2024 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2024 Shahaji Nanai Thorat Alias Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra Returning Officer & Ors. … Respondents WITH APPLICATION (ST) NO. 32011 OF 2024 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2024 Sanjay Dina Patil … Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Shahaji Nanai Thorat Alias Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra Returning Officer & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Prosper D’Souza, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shahaji Nanai Thorat, Petitioner in person present.

Mr. Himanshu B. Takke, AGP for State, Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5. Ms. Shruti Vyas a/w Mr. D. P. Singh for Union of India, for Respondent No.4.

Mr. Tejas Nair a/w Mr. Sagar Kursija & Mr. Ronak Utagikar, for Respondent No. 6.

MANE SONALI DILIP Mr. Vijay Nair a/w Ms. Rachna Mamnani & Ms. Ritika R. i/b Mr.

MANE SONALI DILIP Prashant P. Kulkarni for Respondent No.7.

Date: 2025.02.12 CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 10 FEBRUARY 2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1) The Petitioner has filed this Petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 26 November 2024.

2) At the very outset, this Court raised a query with the Petitioner appearing in person as to how a Review Petition would be maintainable within the framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. To assist the Petitioner who used to earlier appear in person, Mr. D’souza, an advocate practicing in this Court was permitted to represent him in the Review Petition.

3) I have heard Mr. D’souza, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Vijay Nair, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.7, Mr. Himanshu B. Takke, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5-State, Ms. Shruti Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4-Union of India, Mr. Tejas Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6.

4) There is no dispute to the position that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Act of 1950) does not contain a provision for review of order passed by the High Court in an Election Petition. Petitioner has however filed this Petition seeking review of the judgment and order dismissing his Election Petition by invoking the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code).

5) By now, it is well settled position that the Act of 1950 is a self-contained and complete Code in itself. Therefore, all the remedies relating to election would therefore have to be necessarily exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this regard, reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and others Versus. Debi Ghosal and others, (1982) 1 SCC 691 would be relevant, wherein it is held :

8. ……… An election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it.

6) Even qua a common law remedy, the position in law is that power of review cannot be exercised unless specifically conferred by the Statute. A quick reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising Versus. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 would be necessary, wherein it is held that :

12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar[AIR 1965 SC 1457]

and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh [AIR 1966 SC 641] .)

7) An Electio