Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with two writ petitions challenging orders of the appellate authority under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966. The petitioners, Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane and Sidharth Gopal Pardeshi, had filed nominations for seats 6-A (Backward Class of Citizens, Female) and 6-B (General) respectively in Ward No.6 of the Paithan Municipal Council, for which elections were notified by the State Election Commission. The nomination of Sidharth Gopal Pardeshi was initially rejected by the Returning Officer on 18.11.2025 for lack of proper political party authorization, as the Annexure-2 form submitted indicated Ward 6-A instead of 6-B. On appeal, the appellate court directed fresh scrutiny, and the Returning Officer accepted the nomination on 25.11.2025 based on the earlier Annexure-2. Respondent candidate Bajrang Bhausingh Limbore then appealed against this acceptance, contending that the authorization was defective. The appellate court, by order dated 28.11.2025, set aside the acceptance and rejected the nomination, holding that the petitioner lacked proper authorization for Seat 6-B. A similar order was passed in the connected matter of Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging these orders, arguing that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed after election symbols had been allotted and that the authorization was substantial compliance. The High Court noted that ordinarily it would be reluctant to entertain writ petitions against election orders, but due to the postponement of elections notified on 29.11.2025 and the peculiar facts, it deemed it necessary to examine the issues. The court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 02.12.2025, pronouncing its decision on 04.12.2025.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Municipal Elections - Nomination Rejection - Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966, Rule 15 - Appellate court set aside acceptance of nomination due to defective Annexure-2 authorization - High Court noted that although it is slow to entertain writ petitions against election orders, the postponement of elections and peculiar facts warranted examination of the issues. (Paras 4-5)
B) Election Law - Election Programme - Postponement - The State Election Commission's notification dated 29.11.2025 postponed elections in cases where appellate orders were passed after 22.11.2025, allowing no time for withdrawal, and provided a revised schedule; this intervening event influenced the court's decision to hear the petitions. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court's orders rejecting the nominations of the petitioners were valid, given the election programme and subsequent postponement, and whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction in such circumstances.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Election disputes are to be resolved within the election machinery
- High Court intervention is limited but may be warranted in exceptional cases
- postponement of elections can constitute exceptional circumstances
- nominations require proper political party authorization in prescribed forms
- appellate authority must adhere to election programme timelines.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 134
Writ Petition No. 14354 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 14355 of 2025
V. D. Sapkal, Y. V. Kakade, Z. H. Farooqui, R. B. Ade, D. R. Korade, S. K. Tambe, Sachindra Shetye, Sharayu Dhanture, Akshay Pansare
Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane and Sidharth Gopal Pardeshi
The State of Maharashtra, The State Election Commission Maharashtra, The Election Returning Officer Paithan, The Municipal Council Paithan, Mona Jeetsingh Karkotak, Neeta Bharatsingh Kayst, Alkabai Gopalsingh Pardeshi, Sandip Janardhan Aher, Gopichand Harishchandra Gavhane, Manoj Ambadas Dhawle, Yogesh Ankushsingh Pardeshi, Ashvin Chandansingh Lakadhhar, Bajrang Bhausingh Limbore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of the appellate court under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966, which rejected the nominations of the petitioners for the Paithan Municipal Council elections.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the appellate orders dated 28.11.2025 and restoration of their accepted nominations.
Filing Reason
The appellate court set aside the Returning Officer's acceptance of nominations on the ground that the petitioners lacked proper political party authorization (Annexure-2) for the specific seat.
Previous Decisions
The Returning Officer initially accepted the nominations on 25.11.2025 after earlier rejection and direction for fresh scrutiny; on appeal by respondent candidates, the appellate court reversed the acceptance and rejected the nominations.
Issues
Whether the appellate court's order rejecting nomination is valid despite the election programme and allotment of symbols.
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction in election disputes given the exceptional circumstances of postponement.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appeals before the appellate court were not maintainable as they were filed after election symbols were allotted.
Petitioners contended that the political party authorization in Annexure-2 was substantial compliance and the defect was curable.
Respondents argued that the authorization was for the wrong seat, invalidating the nomination.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
Although, this court would be very slow in entertaining writ petition against the orders of the Returning Officer or the appellate authority in exercise of writ jurisdiction, however, on account of intervening event of postponement of election and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case it has become necessary for this court to examine the issues raised and deal with the same.
Procedural History
Elections to Paithan Municipal Council were notified; petitioners filed nominations on 17.11.2025; Returning Officer rejected nomination of Sidharth Gopal Pardeshi on 18.11.2025 for defective Annexure-2; he appealed under Rule 15 and appellate court on 24.11.2025 directed fresh scrutiny; Returning Officer accepted nomination on 25.11.2025; respondent Bajrang Limbore appealed against acceptance on 25.11.2025; appellate court by order dated 28.11.2025 set aside acceptance and rejected nomination; similarly, nomination of Priyanka Gavhane was rejected; writ petitions filed challenging said orders; elections postponed on 29.11.2025; High Court heard and reserved judgment on 02.12.2025, pronounced on 04.12.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965: 9, 10, 341B
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966: Rule 15
