IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION (L.) NO. 5808 OF 2025 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 3 OF 2025 Rajendra Dhedya Gavit …. Applicant (Orig. Respondent)

In the matter between :

Sudhir Brijendra Jain ….Petitioner : Versus :

Rajendra Dhedya Gavit …. Respondent WITH ELECTION PETITION NO. 3 OF 2025 Sudhir Brijendra Jain …. Petitioner : Versus :

Rajendra Dhedya Gavit …. Respondent Mr. Nitin Gangal with Mr. Chandrakant Y. Tanawde, Ms. Namita Mestry, Ms. Prapti Karkera, Ms. Diksha Patil, Mr. Pramod B. Jedhe, Mr. Naresh B. Patil and Mr. Milind Choudhari for the Applicant in Interim Application (L)

No.5808 of 2025 and for Respondent in Election Petition No.3 of 2025.

Smt. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jimmy Mates Gonsalves, Mr. Shrirang P. Katneshwarkar, Mr. Kallies Albert Alphanso and Mr. Sandeep Gupta, i/b. Mr. Anthony Floriyen Foss, for Respondent in Interim Application (L) No.5808 of 2025 and for the Petitioner in Election Petition No.3 of 2025.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment Reserved On : 13 June 2025.

Judgment Pronounced On : 23 June 2025 JUDGMENT:

1) This application is filed by the original Respondent in the Election Petition seeking rejection of the Election Petition under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code).

2) The Petitioner has filed the Election Petition seeking a declaration that the election of the Respondent in the General Election 2024 to the State Assembly from 130-Palghar-ST Assembly Constituency is void.

3) Brief facts leading to filing of the Election Petition are that Petitioner is a voter from 130-Palghar, ST Assembly Constituency who claims himself to be a Social Activist. Respondent contested the election from Assembly Constituency (130-Palghar) as an official candidate of Shiv Sena, a registered political party. The results of the elections were declared on 23 November 2024 in which Respondent was declared as the Elected Candidate.

4) The Petitioner has raised objections about declarations made by the Respondent in the Affidavit in Form-26 filed alongwith the nomination by the Respondent. It is contended that Respondent stated name of Smt. Rupali Gavit as his second wife (Spouse No. 2). According to the Petitioner, such disclosure by the Respondent is not only incorrect but also against the format of Form No.26 prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (the Election Rules). It is contended that the second marriage of Respondent with Smt. Rupali Gavit is void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore the declaration made by the Respondent about Smt. Rupali Gavit as his second wife is false. Additionally, it is contended that in the format of Form No.26 under Rule 4A, there is no provision for making any declaration of second spouse and that therefore addition of an extra column in respect of Spouse No.2 by the Respondent is in violation of Rule 4A of the Election Rules. The Petitioner has accordingly challenged the election of Respondent under the provisions of Section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (the Act).

5) This Court issued summons to the Respondent by order dated 15 January 2025. After service of summons, Respondent has appeared in the Election Petition and has filed his Written Statement. Additionally, Respondent has filed the present application seeking rejection of the Election Petition under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Petitioner has filed Affidavit-in-Reply opposing the application. The application is called out for hearing.

6) Mr. Gangal, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant/original Respondent submits that the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action for questioning the election of the Respondent. That when averments of the Election Petition are read as a whole, it is clear that the Petition lacks the necessary averments for t