SIDHARTH GOPAL PARDESHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Election Law: High Court Sets Aside Appellate Court Order Rejecting Nominations; Opportunity to Rectify Defects in Nomination Forms Must Be Given.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:33552
Decision Date: 04-12-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965; Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966; Representation of the People Act; Constitution of India, Article 245ZG
Case Brief
- Facts: Two petitioners, Sidharth Gopal Pardeshi and Priyanka Yogesh Gavhane, filed nominations for Ward No. 6 (Seats 6-A and 6-B) of the Paithan Municipal Council elections. Pardeshi filed for Seat 6-B (General) but initially submitted Annexure-2 (authorization from the political party) for Ward 6-A (Backward Class Citizen - Female). Gavhane filed for Seat 6-A but submitted Annexure-2 for 6-B. The Returning Officer initially rejected Pardeshi's nomination. On appeal, the District Judge remanded the matter for fresh scrutiny. Subsequently, Pardeshi submitted a fresh Annexure-2 for Seat 6-B, which the Returning Officer accepted. Another candidate, Limbore, appealed this acceptance. The appellate court then rejected both Pardeshi and Gavhane's nominations. The elections were postponed, and the petitioners challenged the appellate court's order via writ petitions.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners challenged the appellate court's order rejecting their nominations by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court heard the petitions due to the urgency and postponement of the elections.
- Issue: 1. Did the appellate court have the power under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966, to set aside the nominations after the allotment of election symbols? 2. Should the Returning Officer have given the petitioners an opportunity to rectify the defects in their Annexure-2 forms during scrutiny? 3. Were the nomination forms rightly rejected by the appellate court?
- Holding: The High Court held that the appellate court erred in setting aside the Returning Officer's acceptance of the nominations. The impugned orders of the appellate court were set aside, and the Returning Officer's acceptance of the nominations was maintained. The Returning Officer was directed to take the rectified Annexure-2 forms on record and include the petitioners' names in the list of nominated candidates.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while there is no explicit time limit for the appellate court to pass orders, implementing an order reversing the Returning Officer's decision after the allotment of symbols would disrupt the election program. The appropriate remedy after symbol allotment is an election petition. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, stating that the Returning Officer should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect in Annexure-2, as Rule 13 of the Election Rules is identical to proviso of section 36 Rule 5 of the Representation of People's Act. The court noted that the elections were postponed, so interference at this stage would subserve the election process.