Disposed¶35

Kishore Bhikaji Darade v. Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode

Bombay HC6 May 2025AEP/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of election petition; Section 109 Representation of the People Act 1950; leave of High Court; Sections 108 to 116 RPA 1950; Chapter IV withdrawal and abatement of election petitions; notice to parties; publication in Official Gazette dated 27.10.2025; newspaper notice; no threat, coercion or inducement; withdrawal on own volition; limited resources of petitioner; identity verified via Aadhar Card; Election Petition No.09 of 2024; Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode v. Kishore Bhikaji Darade; Bombay High Court OOJR; Milind N. Jadhav, J.; disposed of as withdrawn; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw Election Petition No.9 of 2024 effectively granted; the Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn; Application (L) No.20531 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly; no order as to costs. ¶35

Kishore Bhikaji Darade vs Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode — Election Law | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner may be granted leave to withdraw Election Petition No.9 of 2024 in accordance with Chapter IV (Sections 108 to 116), particularly Section 109, of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, with the statutory safeguards against inducement or bargain observed.

¶28

Court's answer

Respondent No.1, represented by Mr. Shah, was notified of the Petitioner's request for withdrawal of the Election Petition.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Notices of the intended withdrawal were published in the newspaper as well as in the Government Gazette, satisfying the publication requirement accompanying a withdrawal application.

¶34

Key takeaways

The withdrawal is on the Petitioner's own volition, with no threat, coercion or inducement of any nature from any corner; consequently the Election Petition will be disposed of as withdrawn.ratio¶34
The principal reason for withdrawal recorded by the Court is that the Petitioner, having limited resources, was unable to ascertain the requisite proof crucial to support the grounds taken in the Petition.obiter¶33
The Court perused the original Aadhar Card of the Petitioner to ascertain his identity in connection with the withdrawal application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Milind N. Jadhav, J. — Election Petition No.09 of 2024, Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode v. Kishore Bhikaji Darade and Ors., decided November 25, 2025: On the Petitioner's Application (L) No.20531 of 2025, the Court dealt with withdrawal of the Election Petition under Chapter IV (Sections 108 to 116), particularly Section 109, of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. After perusing the Petitioner's original Aadhar Card to verify identity, the Court noted that Respondent No.1 had been notified of the withdrawal request, that notices were published in a newspaper and the Government Gazette, and that the withdrawal report stood published in the Official Gazette dated 27.10.2025. Finding the withdrawal to be on the Petitioner's own volition, without threat, coercion or inducement of any nature from any corner — the stated principal reason being the Petitioner's limited resources preventing him from ascertaining proof crucial to the grounds of the Petition — and none having come forward to prosecute the petition, the Court disposed of the Election Petition as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.

¶1

14.EP.09.2025+.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

ELECTION PETITION NO.09 OF 2024

¶6

WITH

¶7

APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2025

¶8

AND

¶9

APPLICATION (L) NO.20531 OF 2025

¶10

¶11

ELECTION PETITION NO.09 OF 2024

¶12

Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode .. Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Kishore Bhikaji Darade and Ors. .. Respondents

¶15

Mr. Pranjal Agarwal, Ms. Dixita Gohil, Ms. Shweta Surana a/w. Mr. Jatin Patil, Advocates i/by Mr. Pranjal Agarwal, Advocates for Petitioner / Applicant.

¶16

Mr. Chirag Shah a/w. Ms. Savita Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Shyamsundar Jadhav i/by Mr. Chirag Shah, Advocates for Respondent No.1 in Election Petition and Applicant in Application No.4348 of 2025.

¶17

Ms. Naira Jeejebhoy a/w Mr. Vinay Nair and Tanmay Pawar, Advocates for Respondent No.3.

¶18

Mr. Mohit Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 and 6 - State.

¶19

Mr. Mayuresh Lagu, Advocate for Respondent No.5 - UOI.

¶20

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2025

¶21

P.C.:

¶22

1. Heard Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate for Petitioner /

¶23

Applicant, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, Ms. Jeejebhoy, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3, Mr. Jadhav, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.4 and 6 - State and Mr. Lagu, learned Advocate for Respondent No.5 - UOI.

¶24

2. This Election Petition is filed by Petitioner seeking declaration of Respondent No.1 as returned candidate as void.

¶25

1 of 3

¶26

14.EP.09.2025+.doc

¶27

Furthermore, Petitioner prayed to be declared as an elected candidate. 3. Application (L) No.20531 of 2025 is filed by Petitioner seeking withdrawal of Election Petition No.9 of 2024. I have perused the original Aadhar Card of Petitioner to ascertain his identity.

¶28

4. Chapter IV of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short ' the said Act '), consists of Sections 108 to 116 which pertains to ‘withdrawal and abatement of Election Petitions’. Section 109 of the said Act specifically pertains to withdrawal of Election Petitions and Sub-section (1) thereof provides that an Election Petition can be withdrawn only by leave of the High Court. Sub-section (2) requires notice of fixing a date for hearing such Application for withdrawal to be given to all other parties to the Petition and to be published in the Official Gazette. Section 110, inter alia, requires the High Court to ascertain that such an Application for withdrawal of the Election Petition has not been induced by any bargain or consideration, which ought not to be allowed. Section 111 of the said Act stipulates that report of such withdrawal should be made to the Election Commission, which in turn, shall publish the report in the Official Gazette.

¶29

5. It is seen that, Respondent No.1, duly represented by Mr. Shah has been notified of Petitioner’s request for withdrawal of the Election Petition. It is noted that Petitioner has published Notices in the newspaper and the said report regarding such withdrawal has been

¶30

2 of 3

¶31

14.EP.09.2025+.doc

¶32

published in the Official Gazette dated 27.10.2025. Petitioner has sought leave to withdraw the Petition on the grounds stated in the Application.

¶33

6. The principal reason for withdrawal of this Petition is that Petitioner having limited resources was unable to ascertain the requisite proof that was crucial to support the grounds taken in the Petition.

¶34

7. The Petition is listed today on board. The names of the parties have been called out. None has come forward to prosecute this petition. Notice in the newspaper as well as in the Government Gazette has now been published. Petitioner has sought leave to withdraw the Petition on the grounds stated in his Application. Since none has come forward to continue with the Petition and that the period is over and Application has been filed by Petitioner stating that he is intending to withdraw the Election Petition on his own volition and there is no threat coercion and / or inducement of any nature from any corner, the Election Petition will have to be disposed of as withdrawn.

¶35

8. Election Petition accordingly stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

H. H. SAWANT

¶37

Digitally signed AJAYTRAMBAK by AJAYTRAMBAKUGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.11.26 20:15:51 +0530

¶38

3 of 3

Kishore Bhikaji Darade v. Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Bhikaji Darade v. Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satin Bharat Asher vs Jayant Lal Chetnani

Lajwanti Bhagwandas Bajaj and 3 Ors. vs Pravin Viram Satra and 7 Ors.

Kaikasa Bano Khan wo Mohd Shakil Mohd Sayeed alias Mohd Shakil Mohd Sayeed Khan vs Mohd Shakil Mohd Sayeed alias Mohd Shakil Mohd Sayeed Khan

Anil Nivrutti Lokhande vs Shankuntala Dattatraya Lokhande Decd and Ors.

Mohd. Afzal Atiq Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode vs Kishore Bhikaji Darade