Disposed¶30

Vishal Maruti Sawant v. the State Election Commission of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2026WP/1883/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Procedural/ministerial order, no substantive law. Keywords: speaking to minutes; correction of Court order; deletion of words “on instructions”; infructuous petition; writ petitions 1883 and 1884 of 2026; State Election Commission Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; Coram Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri; decided 23 March 2026; motion disposed.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of the words “on instructions” from paragraph no.2 of the order dated 11th March, 2026; the original order to be corrected and the corrected order uploaded. ¶30

Vishal Maruti Sawant vs the State Election Commission of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed GAURI by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2026.03.24 18:02:52 +0530

¶2

2&3.WP-1883-2026.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

(2) WRIT PETITION NO.1883 OF 2026

¶5

Vishal Maruti Sawant ….Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Election Commission, Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents

¶8

AND

¶9

(3) WRIT PETITION NO.1884 OF 2026

¶10

Netaji Narayan Bhosale and Anr. ….Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State Election Commission, Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents

¶13

Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar a/w. Ms. Sejal Singh i/b. Mr. Hemant S. Mali for the Petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Nipun Sawane i/b. Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶15

Ms. Neha Bhide, GP a/w. Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl. GP and Mrs. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent – State.

¶16

Mr. Vishal Maruti Sawant, Petitioner present in person in WP/1883/2026.

¶17

Mr. Mahesh Ashok Shivdas, Petitioner No.2 present in person in WP/1884/2026.

¶18

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶19

¶20

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶21

DATE : 23^rd MARCH, 2026

¶22

P.C. :-

¶23

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has moved a

¶24

motion for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 11^th March,

1 of 3

Gauri Gaekwad

2&3.WP-1883-2026.odt

According to him, the Petitions had become infructuous. But when the order of this Court was passed, it was recorded in paragraph no.2 that the learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitions have become infructuous “on instructions.” According to him, he did not have instructions to make such a statement on the said date.

¶29

Today, Mr. Vishal Maruti Sawant, Petitioner in the first Petition, and Mr. Mahesh Ashok Shivdas, Petitioner No.2 in the second Petition, are present in the Court hall, whereas Mr. Netaji Narayan Bhosale, Petitioner No.1 in the second Petition, is not present.

¶30