M G Dawood Miakhan Vs Election Commission of India & Anr.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 25^th February, 2026

¶4

W.P.(C) 7099/2024 with CM APPL. 54054/2025

¶5

M G DAWOOD MIAKHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Mr. G. Priyadharshni, Mr. Satyam Pathak, Ms. Jasleen Kaur Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing Counsel for ECI/R-1 Mr. Haris Beeran, Mr. Sayid Marzook Bafaki, Mr. Azhar Assees, Mr. Anand B. Menon, Mr. Ranjay N., and Mr. Rizwana R. Raj, Advocates for R-2

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶10

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 20^th April, 2024 passed by respondent no.1/Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) on the petitioner’s representation dated 29^th January, 2024. A further direction is sought directing ECI to derecognise the merger of Muslim League Kerala State Committee (‘MLKSC’) with Indian Union Muslim League (‘IUML’) which has been approved/ratified by impugned order dated 3^rd March, 2012 and/or set aside the order dated 3^rd

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

W.P.(C) 7099/2024

¶15

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 8.02.2026 12:15:03

¶16

March, 2012 passed by respondent no.1/ECI.

¶17

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, senior counsel for the petitioner, presses for setting aside of the order dated 20^th April, 2024 and remanding the matter to ECI for a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s representation.

¶18

Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is that IUML was founded in the year 1948 and the same was registered as a political party. In the year 1989, the Kerala unit of IUML got separated and registered itself as a political party by the name of Muslim League Kerala State Committee (MLKSC).

¶19

In the year 2004, the petitioner was wrongfully expelled from IUML. The said expulsion was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Civil Suit before High Court of Madras, being CS No.284/2006.

¶20

4.1 The aforesaid suit is still pending before Civil Court, Chennai.

¶21

A resolution was passed by the members of the IUML, respondent no.2 in the National Executive Meeting dated 26^th November, 2011 with respect to merger of MLKSC with IUML. The said merger was approved by the Election Commission of India vide order dated 3^rd March, 2012.

¶22

Aggrieved by the aforesaid merger, the petitioner raised an issue with the ECI in the year 2012. The aforesaid merger was challenged by one A.S. Fathima Muzaffer by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) 1624/2012 before this Court. Vide order dated 13^th July, 2012, it was observed by this Court that the merger of IUML with MLKSC will be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

¶23

The petitioner made a representation against the merger with the Election Commission of India on 13^th October, 2014. In response thereto, a communication was sent by Election Commission of India on 28^th

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

W.P.(C) 7099/2024

¶27

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 8.02.2026 12:15:03

¶28

December, 2015 stating that the issue raised by the petitioner is already pending adjudication in W.P.(C) 1624/2012, filed by Ms. A.S. Fathima Muzaffer.

¶29

On 27^th September, 2021, the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner therein.

¶30

Upon coming to know of the withdrawal of the said writ petition, the petitioner on 23^rd February, 2022 sent a legal notice to the Election Commission of India raising objections with regard to the merger of IUML and MLKSC.

¶31

Since the petitioner did not receive any response from the Election Commission of India, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 6313/2024 before this Court, challenging the merger order dated 3^rd March, 2012 passed by the Election Commission of India.

¶32

The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6^th May, 2024, taking into account that the Election Commission of India has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 20^th April, 2024.

¶33

Accordingly, liberty was given to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the said rejection.

¶34

Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶35

A perusal of the amalgamation order passed by the Election Commission of India on 3^rd March, 2012, records that the petitioner had objected to the merger. However, it was noted that since the petitioner was not a member of the said party, he had no locus standi to question the merger. Paragraph 7 of the said order is reproduced as under:-

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

W.P.(C) 7099/2024

¶39

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 8.02.2026 12:15:03

¶40

In the impugned order passed on 20^th April, 2024, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter.

¶41

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose submits that the impugned order had wrongfully rejected the representation of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was a former member of the party who was wrongfully expelled. In this regard, he has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 2 of the writ petition, which is set out below:-

¶42

Mr. Ghose also places reliance on paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (‘Election Symbols Order’) in support of his contention that any person who desires to be heard

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

W.P.(C) 7099/2024

¶46

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 8.02.2026 12:15:03

¶47

would have the locus to question the merger.

¶48

Per contra , Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha and Mr. Haris Beeran appearing on behalf of respondents, contend that it has been correctly observed in the impugned order that the petitioner did not have the locus to question the merger between IUML and MLKSC. It is submitted that paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols Order would have to be read in a manner that only persons who are members of the two parties or are connected with them would have the locus to challenge the same. Any other interpretation would open the flood gates for anyone to challenge such orders.

¶49

At this stage, reference may be made to paragraph 16, which is set out below:

¶50

Having carefully perused paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols Order, I would tend to agree with the submissions put forth by the respondents. The words “ any other persons as desire to be heard ” cannot be seen in isolation. They would have to be interpreted by applying principles of ejusdem generis i.e. general words following specific ones are confined in meaning to the same class as the specific words. [Ref.: Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal , (2010) 3 SCC 786]

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Page 5 of 6

¶53

W.P.(C) 7099/2024

¶54

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 8.02.2026 12:15:03

¶55

Accordingly, “ and other persons as desire to be heard ” would only include representatives of the newly formed party or any other representatives/members of the two merging parties. A wider interpretation would result in any busybody who is not involved with the two parties, approaching the ECI and wanting to be heard.

¶56

In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been expelled as a member of respondent no.2/IUML as far back in 2004. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid expulsion. However, the suit filed by the petitioner is still pending with no interim order allowing the petitioner to take part in the functioning of IUML. In fact, the interim order passed in the said suit categorically states that the petitioner is restrained from claiming to be in the State Unit of IUML and from using the IUML’s name.

¶57

In view of the discussion above, the petitioner would not have the locus to object to the merger in terms of paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols Order. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Election Commission of India on 20^th April, 2024.

¶58

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶59

Since this Court is dismissing the writ petition upholding the order passed by Election Commission of India dated 20^th April, 2024, which has rejected the petitioner’s representation on the basis of locus , this Court has not examined the merits of the merger order.

¶60

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶61

FEBRUARY 25, 2026 ds

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Page 6 of 6

¶64

W.P.(C) 7099/2024

¶65

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 8.02.2026 12:15:03

M G Dawood Miakhan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M G Dawood Miakhan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Nijhawan & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shishupal Chauhan & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Kailash Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Raj Bindu Charitable Trust Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Babu Khan Vs DDA

Ran Singh Vs Nadal Officer / Adm (New Delhi) & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Hfo Murali Dhar Yadav

M/S. Daani Enterprises Vs Joint Commissioner Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

Kailash Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Raj Bindu Charitable Trust Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Mrs Jasleen Kaur Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Manish Kumar Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Vijender Vs MCD & Ors.

S B Tripathi Vs P Krishnamurthy & Ors.