IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16667 OF 2025 Kamptee Nagar Vikas Kruti Samiti } Petitioner versus The State Election Commission & Ors. } Respondents Mr. A. R. Ingole, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. B. Shetye, Advocate for State Election Commission.

Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. G. R.

Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent-State.

Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE: 8^th DECEMBER 2025 P.C.:

The petitioner-Samiti seeks to espouse the cause registered voters residing within the respondent no.4-Council and seeks the following reliefs: -

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ,Order or Direction: -

i) hold and declare that the inaction on the part of the respondent nos. 1 and 3-State Election Commission, Mumbai and Returning Officer for General Election of Municipal Council Kamptee appointed for the Elections of President of respondent no. 4- Municipal Council, Kamptee in conducting election as per final voter list published on 31.10.2025 (Annexure-B) and conducting election as per booth-wise voter list (Annexure-C) is illegal;

ii) direct the respondent nos. 1 and 3-State election Commission, Mumbai and Returning Officer for General election of Municipal Council Kamptee to decide the representation/complaint dated

02.12.2025 (Annexure-D) made by the petitioner, forthwith.”

2. Mr. Ingole, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the final voter list for the General Election 2025 of the respondent no. 4-council was published by the respondent no.1 on 31^st October 2025. The respondent nos.1 to 3 were duty bound to adhere to the final voter list as published on 31^st October 2025. He contends that the respondent no.2 failed to abide by the published voter list and conducted the the election on 2^nd December 2025 on the basis of new booth-wise voter list. Due to the discrepancies, not only it caused confusion amongst the voters, it deprived hundreds of voters of their legal right to vote in the election held on 2^nd December 2025. This has caused immense prejudice to the contesting candidates and the voters at large. The petitioner has lodged a complaint on 2^nd December 2025 with the respondent no.3 regarding the said discrepancy in the final voter list and booth-wise voter list but no action has been taken.

3. In our view, this petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Secondly, it has raised several contentions which are all disputed questions of facts. They cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. A reference can be made to Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India which expressly bars the interference by the Courts in electoral matters and provides a remedy of election petition to be presented before the such authority as may be prescribed to question any election to Municipal Councils. Section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 lays down the procedure to challenge validity of any election held under the Act. The Article 243-ZG reads as follows:

“243-ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA shall not be called in question in any court;

(b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.]”

5. Following the decision of “Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman” (1985) 4 SCC 689, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P.” (1996) 6 SCC 3