Dismissed¶¶30

Rohan Ramdas Satone v. Union of India

Bombay HC9 Jun 2025EP/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of election petition; Section 109(2) Representation of Peoples Act 1951 held mandatory; dispensation of service and Official Gazette publication refused; substitution of prospective petitioner within 14 days under Section 110(3); prayer clause (c) rejected; Section 110(2) bar on induced withdrawals noted; report of withdrawal to Election Commission under Section 111; Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Election Petition No. 15 of 2025; Interim Application (L) No. 23328 of 2025; Abhay Ahuja, J.; listed 25 August 2025.

What did the court decide?

Section 109(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 is mandatory: the word 'shall' requires that notice fixing a date for hearing of the withdrawal application be given to all other parties to the petition and that it be published in the Official Gazette.

Rohan Ramdas Satone vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner can be dispensed from the requirements of Section 109(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 — notice of the withdrawal application (Interim Application (L) No. 23328 of 2025) to all other parties to the petition and its publication in the Official Gazette — i.e., whether prayer clause (c) of the Petition can be granted.

¶¶6

Court's answer

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

A sole Petitioner cannot be exempted from Section 109(2) of the Act — also because, upon publication of the notice of withdrawal, a person who might himself have been a Petitioner may apply within 14 days to be substituted in place of the withdrawing party — and therefore the prayer for dispensation of service under Section 109(2) cannot be granted.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

Prayer clause (c) sought in the Petition (dispensation of service / Gazette publication under Section 109(2)) is rejected.ratio¶¶30
In compliance with Section 109(2), directions issued that the withdrawal application be served along with notice of hearing on all the parties to the Petition and that there be publication in the Official Gazette.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J., 29.07.2025), Election Petition No. 15 of 2025: The Petitioner filed Interim Application (L) No. 23328 of 2025 seeking withdrawal of the election petition and prayed (clause (c)) for dispensation of service under Section 109(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and of Official Gazette publication, noting that Respondents No. 1 to 4 had earlier been deleted, several respondents stood served by RPAD while others' packets were returned 'unclaimed'/'incomplete address', that no prayer was made to declare any other candidate elected or to void the election of the returned candidate (Respondent No. 6), and that no party objected to withdrawal. Counsel for Respondent No. 6 opposed, contending Section 109(2) is mandatory. Held: the word 'shall' in Section 109(2) makes notice of the withdrawal application to all other parties and its publication in the Official Gazette obligatory; further, upon such publication a person who might himself have been a Petitioner may within 14 days apply to be substituted under sub-section (3) of Section 110; hence a sole Petitioner cannot be exempted from Section 109(2) and prayer clause (c) stands rejected. Directions: objections to be removed and registered number obtained within two weeks; Interim Application listed on 25 August 2025 (Supplementary Board); application to be served with notice of hearing on all parties and published in the Official Gazette as per Section 109(2); affidavit of service to be filed by the next date. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

¶1

904-EP-15-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

ELECTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2025

¶4

Rohan Ramdas Satone …Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Anil Jaising Jadhav for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit A. Karande for the Respondent No.6.

¶6

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 29^th JULY, 2025

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, today when the matter is called out, Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioner and submits that the Interim Application (L) No. 23328 of 2025 has been filed seeking withdrawal of the Election Petition and that the said Interim Application is not on board and is yet to be served.

¶9

Interim Application (L) No. 23328 of 2025 is not on Board but is taken on Board.

¶10

Mr. Jadhav at the outset seeks dispensation of service under Section 109 (2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (the “Act”), submitting that the Respondents No. 5 to 8, 10, 12, 14 to 18, 20 to 23

¶11

Nikita Gadgil 1/6

¶12

904-EP-15-2025.doc

¶13

and 25 have been served through RPAD. That the packets with respect to the Respondents No. 9, 13 and 24 have been returned with the remark “unclaimed” and the packets with respect to the Respondents No. 11 and 19 are returned with the remarked “incomplete address”. Mr. Jadhav submits that earlier by order of this Court, the Respondents No.1 to 4 were deleted. That the address of all the Respondents was as per the official address given by them in their nomination affidavits.

¶14

Mr. Jadhav submits that since he has made all the contesting candidates as the Respondents in the Petition and there is no prayer for declaration that any other candidate be declared as elected and also that there is no prayer to declare the election of the returned candidate, viz. the Respondent No. 6, as void and also that the Petitioner’s grievance against the Respondent No.5 is concerned, the Petitioner has been advised to take appropriate remedies against them as available in law, the consent of any other person is not required for withdrawing the Election Petition. It is also submitted that since the Petition is fatally defective, no purpose will be served by substituting any other elector as Petitioner. It is submitted that the withdrawal is neither misuse or abrupt termination of proceeding and democratic integrity would not be impacted in any manner whatsoever and that, therefore, this Court

¶15

Nikita Gadgil 2/6

¶16

904-EP-15-2025.doc

¶17

may permit dispensation of service to the parties to the Petition and also publication in the Official Gazette as required under Section 109 (2) of the Act. It is submitted that in any event there will be a publication of the withdrawal of the order under Section 110(3)(b) of the Act. That none of the parties have objected to the withdrawal of the Petition.

¶18

On the other hand, Mr. Karande, learned Counsel appears for the Respondent No.6 and submits that since the provision of Section 109 (2) of the Act is a mandatory provision, the dispensation of service and of the Official Gazette publication of the Application for withdrawal is not permissible.

¶19

I have heard the learned Counsel on the aspect of dispensation of service and publication under Section 109 (2) of the Act and therefore, it would be relevant to quote Section 109 of the Act is as under:-

¶20

“109. Withdrawal of election petitions-(1) An election petition may be withdrawn only by leave of the High Court.

¶21

(2) Where an application for withdrawal is made under subsection (1), notice thereof fixing a date for the hearing of the application shall be given to all other parties to the petition and shall be published in the Official Gazette”.

Nikita Gadgil

3/6

904-EP-15-2025.doc

Chapter IV of the Act provides for withdrawal and abatement of of the Election Petitions. Section 109 refers to the substantive provisions on withdrawal where Section 109(1) clearly provides that the Election Petition may be withdrawn only by leave of the High Court. Section 109 (2) provides that where an application for withdrawal is made under sub-section (1), notice thereof fixing a date for the hearing of the application shall be given to all parties to the Petition and shall be published in the Official Gazette. Section 110 of the Act provides for the procedure for withdrawal. Section 111 of the Act provides for a report of withdrawal by the High Court to the Election Commission. The said section will become relevant upon the order permitting withdrawal.

¶26

In the facts of this case, since there is only one Petitioner, Section 110 (1) is not relevant. However, Section 110(2) provides that no application for withdrawal shall be granted, if in the opinion of the High Court, such application has been induced by any bargain or consideration which ought not to be allowed. It is pointed out that the averment on this fact has been made in paragraph 3 of the Application.

¶27

Nikita Gadgil 4/6

¶28

904-EP-15-2025.doc

¶29

Sub-section (3) of Section 110 of the Act provides that if the Application is granted then the Petitioner shall be ordered to pay the costs of the Respondents, the High Court shall direct that the notice of withdrawal be published in the Official Gazette and also that the person who might himself have been a Petitioner may, within 14 days of such publication apply to be substituted as Petitioner in place of the party withdrawing.

¶30

Considering the mandatory nature of Section 109(2) of the Act, where the word used is “shall” for the notice to be given to all other parties to the Petition and also for publication in the Official Gazette and also considering that upon publication of notice of withdrawal there may be a person who might himself have been a Petitioner who may want to be substituted in place of Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner cannot be exempted from the provision of Section 109 (2) of the Act and therefore, the prayer for dispensation of service under Section 109(2) of the Act cannot be granted. The payer Clause (c) sought for in the Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶31

It is observed that the Interim Application is on lodging number. Let objections be removed and registered number be obtained within a period of two weeks.

¶32

Nikita Gadgil 5/6

¶33

904-EP-15-2025.doc

¶34

Subject to the above, list the Interim Application on 25^th August,

¶35

2025 on the Supplementary Board.

¶36

Let the Application be served along with the notice of hearing to

¶37

all the parties to the Petition and let there be a publication in the Official Gazette as per the Section 109(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

¶38

Let an appropriate affidavit of service also be filed by the next

date.

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2025.07.30 11:01:00 +0530

¶43

Nikita Gadgil 6/6

Rohan Ramdas Satone v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Ramdas Satone v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Taranjot Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs M v Vishva Chetna Imo No 9603893

Nazneen Mark Harper vs Rhoda Mehli Kharas

Wacker Chemie a G vs Reliance Silicones India Ltd. Ltd.

Crt Financial Services Llc vs Solomont Conglomerate India Pvt. Ltd.

Atul Projects India Ltd. vs Prabha Bhavan Kataria and Rajendra R. Singh

Ajay Ghanshyamdas Goenka vs Alfred Michael Arambhan