Mukesh Thanmal Parmar v. Lonavala Nagar Parishad And ORS
PDP 903-WP-16722-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16722 OF 2025 Mukesh Thanmal Parmar .. Petitioner
Versus
Lonavala Nagar Parishad & Ors.
.. Respondents ...
Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi i/by Mr. Vivek Thakare, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sachindra Shetye a/w Mr. Akshay Pansare & Ms. Vrushali Shivgan for Respondent-State Election Commission. Mr. Harshwardhan Pawar a/w Mr. Dattatraya Devkar, Advocates for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 9th DECEMBER 2025.
P.C. :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26th November 2025 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.33 of 2025 passed by the District Judge-2, Vadgaon Maval. In Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.33 of 2025, the petitioner laid a challenge to the order dated 18th November 2025 passed by the Returning Officer of the Lonavala Nagar Parishad, District of Pune by which nomination paper/form of the respondent no.2 for Ward No.5 of Lonavala Nagarparishad Election, 2025 was accepted.
by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date:
2025.12.10 12:33:35 +0530 PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT 2.
As to the maintainability of a writ petition to challenge the rejection of a nomination form by the Returning Officer, a full Bench of this Court referred to Article 243 of the Constitution of India in
PDP 903-WP-16722-2025.doc "Karma Veer Tulshiram Autade v. State Election Commission, Mumbai" 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 37 and held that filing of a writ petition is not a plea to subserve the progress of election and/or facilitate its completion, as indicated in "Mohinder Singh Gil & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors." (1978) 1 SCC 405. The full Bench held as under:- "68.
For the reasons aforesaid, while agreeing with the view in Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade (supra), we answer the fundamental question as formulated in paragraph 27 in the negative. As a sequel thereto, we answer the questions referred by the Division Bench in the manner as follows:
(i) Allowing a challenge in a writ petition to rejection of nomination form to contest an election and granting the relief claimed by setting aside such order of rejection is definitely not a step to subserve the progress of election and/or facilitate its completion in the sense enunciated in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and explained in Ashok Kumar (supra) though it may not always amount to intervention, obstruction or protraction of the election;
(ii) Article 243-0(b) of the Constitution of India is a bar for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper and such provision would clearly be attracted whenever a writ petition is presented before a Court for its consideration; and (iii) The law laid down in Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade (supra) represents the correct view of law; consequently, we hold that the decision in. Smt. Mayaraju Ghavghave (supra) and Sudhakar s/o Vitthal Misal (supra) do not lay down the correct law."
3.
In view thereof, Writ Petition No.16722 of 2025 is dismissed. [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]