Disposed¶8

Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode v. Kishore Bhikaji Darade

Bombay HC6 May 2025EP/9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court election petition withdrawal; leave of High Court under Section 109, Representation of the People Act 1950; Section 110 no bargain, consideration, threat, coercion or inducement; Section 111 report to Election Commission and publication in Official Gazette dated 27.10.2025; newspaper notice of withdrawal; Aadhar Card identity verification; Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode v. Kishore Bhikaji Darade; Election Petition No.09 of 2024; Application (L) No.20531 of 2025; Milind N. Jadhav J.; disposed of as withdrawn; no order as to costs.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Leave to withdraw Election Petition No.9 of 2024 granted; Election Petition disposed of as withdrawn; Application (L) No.20531 of 2025 disposed of accordingly; no order as to costs. ¶8

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to withdraw Election Petition No.9 of 2024 granted; Election Petition disposed of as withdrawn; Application (L) No.20531 of 2025 disposed of accordingly; no order as to costs.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether leave of the High Court should be granted to the Petitioner to withdraw Election Petition No.9 of 2024 in accordance with Sections 109 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The statutory preconditions for withdrawal under Sections 109 and 111 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 stand satisfied: Respondent No.1 was notified of the Petitioner's request for withdrawal, notices were published in a newspaper, and the report regarding withdrawal was published in the Official Gazette dated 27.10.2025.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner intended to withdraw the Election Petition on his own volition; there was no threat, coercion and/or inducement of any nature from any corner, meeting the Section 110 requirement that the application for withdrawal not be induced by any bargain or consideration.

¶7

Key takeaways

Since none came forward to prosecute the Election Petition, it stands disposed of as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and Application (L) No.20531 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction — Election Petition No.09 of 2024, Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode v. Kishore Bhikaji Darade (Milind N. Jadhav J., 25.11.2025): Election Petition challenging the return of Respondent No.1 as returned candidate, with a further prayer that the Petitioner be declared elected. Petitioner filed Application (L) No.20531 of 2025 seeking withdrawal. The Court, after perusing the Petitioner's original Aadhar Card, recorded compliance with Chapter IV (Sections 108 to 116) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Sections 109 to 111): Respondent No.1 was notified of the request for withdrawal, notices were published in a newspaper, and the report regarding withdrawal was published in the Official Gazette dated 27.10.2025. Principal ground for withdrawal: the Petitioner's limited resources prevented him from ascertaining the requisite proof supporting the grounds taken in the Petition. None came forward to prosecute the Petition; withdrawal was on the Petitioner's own volition, without threat, coercion or inducement. HELD: Election Petition disposed of as withdrawn; Application (L) No.20531 of 2025 disposed of accordingly; 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 IN

¶10

ELECTION PETITION NO.09 OF 2024

¶11

Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode .. Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

Kishore Bhikaji Darade and Ors. .. Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

P.C.:

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

1 of 3

¶25

14.EP.09.2025+.doc

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

2 of 3

¶30

14.EP.09.2025+.doc

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

H. H. SAWANT

¶36

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

¶37

3 of 3

Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode v. Kishore Bhikaji Darade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausaheb Vitthal Bhogode v. Kishore Bhikaji Darade

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

Dipak Maruti Nilave vs Priya Vishnu Parab (Deceased)