Sarmatiya Mohammad Asif Abdul Gaffar Vs the State Election Commission, Thr. Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

This Court, on 21/11/2025, issued notice to the respondents and, on finding prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to contest the election. The reason for issuing such direction was the submission of the petitioner that he is the sponsored candidate of recognized political party, namely the Indian National Congress Party.

¶12

It is further argued that, being a sponsored candidate of a recognized political party, only one proposer is required and not five.

¶13

Shri A.M. Kukday, learned counsel appearing for Respondent

¶14

No.1 – State Election Commission, has filed this application for modification of the order and pointed out that the petitioner is not the

rkn

2

81wp7182.2025.odt

sponsored candidate of the Indian National Congress, but one Shri Nagani Abdul Shakur Mohamamad Usman is. It is submitted that upon acceptance of the nomination form of Shri Nagani Abdul Shakur Mohamamad Usman, the petitioner's nomination was considered as an application filed by an independent candidate, and in that case, the requirement is of five proposers.

¶19

It is submitted that, since the petitioner was only a dummy candidate of the Indian National Congress, it would have been considered as a nomination of a sponsored candidate of a recognized party only if the nomination of Shri Nagani Abdul Shakur Mohamamad Usman had been rejected.

¶20

It is further submitted that since the candidature of Shri Nagani Abdul Shakur Mohamamad Usman has been accepted as the sponsored candidate of the Indian National Congress, the petitioner cannot be considered a sponsored candidate of the same party.

¶21

Considering the above referred submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No.1, and on specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner to show the A B Form issued by the recognized party to the petitioner, which is the requirement to submit along with nomination paper to show that the petitioner is sponsored candidate of the recognized political party, the answer is negative and it

rkn

3

81wp7182.2025.odt

is apparent that, no such A B Form or any document is filed on record showing that the petitioner is a sponsored candidate of Indian National Congress party..

¶26

In the circumstances, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner is an independent candidate and cannot be treated as a sponsored candidate of the recognized party i.e. Indian National Congress.

¶27

In the above referred circumstances, no error is committed by the respondent in rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that, nomination of the petitioner is not supported by five proposers which are required in case of any candidate other than the candidate sponsored by a recognized political party.

¶28

Accordingly, we vacate the interim order permitting the petitioner to con t est the election and finding that no error is committed by the respondent in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.

¶29

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶30

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶31

rkn

Sarmatiya Mohammad Asif Abdul Gaffar v. the State Election Commission, Thr. Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarmatiya Mohammad Asif Abdul Gaffar v. the State Election Commission, Thr. Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Namdeorao Shinde and Another Vs the State Government of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Omprakash @ Bacchubhau Babarao Kadu Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Co-Operation, Marketing and Textile Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Vivek Shikshan Sanstha Kurhadi, Goregaon, Thr. Secretary and Anr. Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Kartik Mangal Jule Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

Rajendra Mohan Deokate and Ors. Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

Ganesh Ramesh Sanap and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Public Health Officer, Mumbai and Ors.