Bombay High Court
HARSHALI AKASH SOLVANDEversusTHE STATE COMMISSIN MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as Article 243(b) bars challenges to the rejection of nomination papers, and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Harshali Akash Solwande, challenged the rejection of her nomination for the Takari Panchayat Samiti SC (Female) seat on the ground that the Returning Officer had not accepted her Form II, a document required under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Panchayat Samiti (Electoral Division & Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1962. The petitioner argued that non‑submission of Form II was not a substantial defect under Rule 19(4) and that the rejection could be remedied. The respondents contended that Form II is essential and that the Rules provide no opportunity to cure the defect after the cut‑off date, justifying the rejection. The Court examined the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 in light of the bar created by Article 243(b) of the Constitution, relying on the Full Bench decision in Karma Veer Tulshiram Autade v. State Election Commission (2021). Applying that precedent, the Court held that such writ petitions are barred and dismissed the petition. Consequently, the rejection of the nomination stands.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑submission of Form II constitutes a substantial defect justifying rejection of the nomination under Rule 19(4) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Panchayat Samiti Rules, 1962.
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge the rejection of a nomination form, given the bar under Article 243(b).
- Whether the Returning Officer could be directed to allow the petitioner to file the missing Form II after the statutory cut‑off date.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 243(b)
Subjects
- writ petition
- nomination rejection
- Election law
- Article 226
- Article 243(b)
- Zilla Parishad Panchayat Samiti Rules
- substantial defect
- political party nomination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1296 OF 2026
Harshali Akash Solwande ]
R/o. Post Takari, Tal. Walva, Dist. Sangli ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Election Commission, ]
Maharashtra ]
2. The Election Returning Officer @ ]
Sub-Divisional Officer, ]
Zilla Parishad & Panchayat Samities ] .. Respondents
Mr. Vivek Patil with Mr. Shashank Mangle, Mr. Mayur Patil,
Mr. Afsar Ansari, Ms. Apurva Renake, Advocates, i/by Mr.
Shashank Mangle, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye with Mr. Akshay Pansare, Advocates for
the Respondents.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2026.
[ THROUGH HYBRID HEARING ]
P.C. :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22 nd January
2026 by which the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting
the elections for the post of “Takari Panchayat Samiti Member,
Scheduled Caste (Female)” has been rejected.
2. Mr. Vivek Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner intended to contest the elections for Gat/
Electorate No.73, Village Takari, Tal. Walva in the district of
Sangli. She was a candidate sponsored by Shiv Sena (Eknath
Shinde) Party. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Hindu
Mang caste which is in fact a Scheduled Caste. The caste
certificate has been duly validated by the concerned authority and
the petitioner produced the same along with her nomination form.
1/4
902-WP-1296-2026.doc Dixit
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Rule 19(4) of
Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Panchayat Samiti (Electoral Division &
Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1962 and submits that the
nomination form of a candidate is not liable to be rejected except
on a ground that the deficiency is of a substantial character. The
learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the provisions under
Rules 13 and 16 which are reproduced here-in-below and submits
that non-furnishing of “Form II” along with the nomination form is
not a substantial ground on which the nomination of the
petitioner could have been rejected.
“13. Nomination of Candidates:-
(1) Any person may be nominated as a candidate for election to
fill a seat if he is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under
the provisions of the Act.
(2) Every nomination paper presented under Rule 14 shall be
completed in Form II;
Provided that, a failure to complete or defect in completing,
the declaration as to symbols shall not be deemed to be a
defect of a substantial character within the meaning of sub-
rule (4) of Rule 19.
(3) A nomination paper shall be supplied by the Returning
Officer to any voter on demand.
16. Symbols for election:-
(1) The State Election Commission shall by notification in the
Official Gazette specify the symbols that may be chosen by
candidate at an election in any electoral division and the
restrictions to which their choice shall be subject:
Provided that, the Collector may, if in his opinion it is
necessary so to do, add any symbols to the list of symbols
notified by the State Election Commission and he shall
forthwith inform the State Election Commission of such
addition.
(2) Where at any such election, more nomination papers that
one are delivered by or on behalf of a candidate, the
declarations as to symbols made in the nomination paper
first delivered and no other declarations as to symbols shall
be taken into consideration under Rule 22 even if that
nomination paper has been rejected.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to page
79 of the paper-book and submits that “Form II” which pertains to
2/4
902-WP-1296-2026.doc Dixit
nomination of a candidate by a political party was duly published
in the name of the petitioner and the said document was ignored
by the Returning Officer.
5. Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye, the learned counsel for the State
Election Commission refers to page no.73 which is a document
signed by the Returning Officer on 21 st January 2026 reflects that
“Form II” which is a declaration regarding the choice of election
symbols was not produced by the petitioner along with her
nomination papers. “Form II” which is a prerequisite under Rule
13 and to be filled by the ‘Proposer’ is an essential document to be
filed along with the nomination form. There is no provision under
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Panchayat Samiti (Electoral
Division & Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1962 for offering an
opportunity to a candidate to remove this defect and to file “Form
II” on a later date, particularly after the cut-off date of
21st January 2026. “Form II” declaration would obviously be a
necessary document in absence of which the nomination of a
candidate allegedly sponsored by a political party is liable to be
rejected.
6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to the submission of “Form II” is contrary to the
stand taken by and statements made by the petitioner in this writ
petition. This also needs a mention that the arguments made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-submission of
“Form II” shall not be a substantial reason to reject the
nomination form goes to show that the document at page no.79
which is purportedly the requisite “Form II” was not submitted by
the petitioner along with her nomination papers.
7. As to the maintainability of a writ petition to challenge the
3/4
902-WP-1296-2026.doc Dixit
rejection of a nomination form by the Returning Officer, a Full
Bench of this Court referred to Article 243 of the Constitution of
India in “Karma Veer Tulshiram Autade & Ors. v. State Election
Commission, Mumbai & Ors.” 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 37 and held
that filing of a writ petition is not a plea to subserve the progress
of election and/or facilitate its completion, as indicated in
“Mohinder Singh Gil & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New
Delhi & Ors.” (1978) 1 SCC 405. The Full Bench held as under:-
“68.For the reasons aforesaid, while agreeing with the view in Vinod
Pandurang Bharsakade (supra), we answer the fundamental
question as formulated in paragraph 27 in the negative. As a
sequel thereto, we answer the questions referred by the Division
Bench in the manner as follows:
(i) Allowing a challenge in a writ petition to rejection of
nomination form to contest an election and granting the relief
claimed by setting aside such order of rejection is definitely
not a step to subserve the progress of election and/or
facilitate its completion in the sense enunciated in Mohinder
Singh Gill (supra) and explained in Ashok Kumar (supra)
though it may not always amount to intervention, obstruction
or protraction of the election;
(ii) Article 243-0(b) of the Constitution of India is a bar for
entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution against an order passed by the Returning Officer
rejecting nomination paper and such provision would clearly
be attracted whenever a writ petition is presented before a
Court for its consideration; and
(iii) The law laid down in Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade (supra)
represents the correct view of law; consequently, we hold
that the decision in. Smt. Mayaraju Ghavghave (supra) and
Sudhakar s/o Vitthal Misal (supra) do not lay down the
correct law.”
8. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.1296 of 2026 is
dismissed.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]
Digitally
signed by 4/4
SNEHA SNEHA
ABHAY DIXIT
ABHAY Date:
902-WP-1296-2026.doc Dixit
DIXIT 2026.03.04
16:05:55
+0530
Checking your session…