Partly allowed¶¶34-35

Rahul Mundake, the Returning Officer v. Pandharinath Dyaneshwar Jadhav

Bombay HC30 Jul 2025AEP/12/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Election petition interim application; release of EVMs — 331 Ballot Units and 331 Control Units; custody of District Election Officer; striking off Election Commission of India and Returning Officer as respondents; improper rejection of nomination paper; Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 1 SCC 691; Bombay High Court OOCJ; N.R. Borkar J.; Application No. 12 of 2025 in Election Petition No. 26 of 2025; application partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Prayers (a) and (b) allowed — declaration that the 331 Ballot Units and 331 Control Units in the custody of the District Election Officer are not necessary for adjudication of the election petition, and direction for their release; prayer (c) (striking off Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) rejected; application disposed of. ¶¶34-35

Rahul Mundake, the Returning Officer vs Pandharinath Dyaneshwar Jadhav — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34-35

Issue for consideration

Whether the EVMs comprising 331 Ballot Units and 331 Control Units kept in the custody of the District Election Officer are necessary for adjudication of Election Petition No. 26 of 2025, and whether they should be released. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

Prayers (a) and (b) of the application were allowed: the EVMs comprising 331 Ballot Units and 331 Control Units are not necessary for determining the dispute in the election petition, and their release from the custody of the District Election Officer was directed.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

Prayer clause (c) — striking off Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 — was rejected, because the election petition is founded on the alleged improper rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper by respondent No.2 (the Returning Officer), whose action is under challenge.

¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, OOCJ (N.R. Borkar, J.; 18.12.2025) — Application No. 12 of 2025 in Election Petition No. 26 of 2025 (Pandharinath Dnyaneshwar Jadhav v. Election Commission of India and Ors.). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sought (a) a declaration that the 331 Ballot Units and 331 Control Units in the custody of the District Election Officer are unnecessary for adjudication, (b) their release, and (c) striking off Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the array of respondents. Held: prayers (a) and (b) allowed — the EVMs are not necessary for determining the dispute and are to be released; prayer (c) rejected — the petition is directed against the Returning Officer's rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper, so the respondents cannot be struck off. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied on Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691 (ECI and Returning Officer not necessary parties); the Court's order does not adopt or discuss that precedent, resting instead on the nature of the challenge to the nomination rejection. Application partly allowed and disposed of.

¶1

902-AEP-12-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2025 IN

¶4

ELECTION PETITION NO. 26 OF 2025

¶5

Rahul Mundake …Applicant/ Orig.Respondent No.2

¶6

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶7

Pandharinath Dnyaneshwar Jadhav

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

V/s.

¶10

Election Commission of India and Ors.

¶11

...Respondents.

¶12

Adv. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w Adv. Sweta Shah & Adv. Abhishek Roy, Advocate forApplicant/Orig.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Adv. Khalid Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶13

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 18.12.2025.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by this application have

¶16

prayed that:

¶17

a) That this Hon’ble Court be please to declare that the EVM’s consisting of Ballot Units 331 and Control Units 331 which are kept in custody of the District Election Officer are not necessary for the adjudication or determining the dispute in the above Election Petition.

Pramod S.Lakare

1/3

902-AEP-12-2025.doc

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to release 331 Ballot Units and 331 Control Units which are kept in the custody of the District Election Officer.

¶22

c) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to strike off the name of Respondent No 1 and 2 from the array of Respondents of this petition, to secure the ends of justice.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayers (a) & (b) can be granted, as EVMs in question are not necessary for determining the issue involved in the present Petition.

¶25

As regards prayer (c) the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No.2-The Returning Officer is under challenge, as, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2 erred in rejecting his nomination paper. It is submitted that prayer (c) thus needs to be rejected.

Pramod S.Lakare

2/3

902-AEP-12-2025.doc

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

¶30

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that it is well settled that the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer are not necessary parties to the Election Petition. In support of submission, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and Ors. vs. Debi Ghosal and Ors¹ .

¶31

The present Election Petition is filed on the

¶32

ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner by respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, the prayer clause (c) cannot be allowed. In the result, the following order is passed :

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

i) The Application is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) & (b).

¶35

ii) The prayer clause ‘C’ is rejected. Iii) The Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶37

1 (1982) 1 SCC 691 Pramod S.Lakare

¶38

3/3

Rahul Mundake, the Returning Officer v. Pandharinath Dyaneshwar Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mundake, the Returning Officer v. Pandharinath Dyaneshwar Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manak Eknath Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Mohd Zubair Siddiq Memon and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Niraj Kumar vs Central Bureau of Investigation Acb, Mumbai and Anr.

Chetan Pandit Narote vs Devendra Rajesh Kothe

Babaji Ramchandra Kale vs Shantaram Mahadu Deshmukh

Shakuntala Ravi Kadu and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra