Shiakh Asif Shaikh Rashid @ Asif Shaikh Rasheed v. Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique

Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ELECTION PETITION NO. 7 OF 2025 Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid Alias Asif Shaikh Rasheed ..Petitioner

Versus

Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique

...Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22929 OF 2025 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 7 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22792 OF 2025 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 7 OF 2025 Mr. Bhooshan Mandlik, for the Petitioner in EP/7/2025. Mr. Suyash Khose, with Abhijit Aher, Siddharth Sutaria and Abhishek Nandimath, for Respondent No.1 and for the Applicant in AEP(L)/22792/2025. , for the Respondent.

Mr. Jaineel Vashi, i/b M/s M.P. Vashi & Associates, for Respondent No.5.

Mr. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv, for Respondent No.6. Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, with Vinay Nair, i/b Arun Panickar, for Respondent No.13 and for the Applicant in AEP(L) No. 22929/2025.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.08.01 09:18:32 +0530

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED :

31st JULY 2025 P.C.:

1/3

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22792 OF 2025:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This is an Application for extension of time to file Written Statement, by condoning the delay of 76 days in filing the Written Statement on behalf of Respondent No.1-the Returned Candidate. 3.

The Applicant avers that the Written Statement was ready in the month of May 2025, itself. However, on account of inadvertence on the part of the concerned Advocate, the Written Statement could not be filed.

4.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not averse to the Court permitting the Respondent No.1 to file the Written Statement, as the Petitioner is interested in the adjudication of the election dispute at the earliest. However, the Respondent No.1 be saddled with costs.

5.

In view of the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the Petitioner, and to provide an effective opportunity of hearing and to advance the cause of substantive justice and also for the reasons assigned in the Application, this Court is persuaded to allow the Application and permit the Respondent No.1 to file the Written Statement by condoning the delay of 76 days, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.

6.

The costs be paid within a period of two weeks. 2/3

7.

Application disposed.

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22929 OF 2025:

8.

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.13 submits that the Respondent No.13 has taken out an Application to delete the Respondent No.13 from the array of the parties and release of EVMs. A copy of the Application is served on the Counsel for the Petitioner across the bar.

9.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to consider the Application and file an Affidavit in Reply. Let the Affidavit in Reply be filed within a period of one week.

ELECTION PETITION NO. 7 OF 2025:

10.

List the Petition for 'settlement of issues' on 14th August 2025. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3