Bombay High Court

RAMDAS BALIRAM SALUNKE AND OTHERSversusTHE RETURNING OFFICER MR SANTOSH DHANSING PATIL AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The writ petition is disposed as the competent authority’s acceptance of the change report defeats the petitioners’ claim.

Summary

Petitioners Ramdas Baliram Salunke and others filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their nomination in the election of a trust. They argued that the rejection was illegal and sought relief from the High Court. The respondents submitted that after the election a change report had been filed and subsequently accepted by the competent authority, thereby curing any defect. The Court observed that once the competent authority accepts the change report, the grounds of the petition no longer survive for adjudication. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to pursue any other available remedy before the appropriate authority.

Issues considered

Whether the rejection of the nomination in the trust election can be challenged by a writ petition after the competent authority has accepted the change report

Subjects

trust election
nomination rejection
writ petition
competent authority
alternate remedy

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:555
                                                (1)                  902-wp-3080-2024.odt



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3080 OF 2024

                             RAMDAS BALIRAM SALUNKE AND OTHERS
                                          VERSUS

                THE RETURNING OFFICER MR SANTOSH DHANSING PATIL
                                        AND OTHERS
                                              …..
               Mr. Dhananjay B. Thoke, Advocate for the Petitioners
               Mr. Sushilkumar H. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and
               17.
               Mr. Girish S. Rane, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                               …..
                                       CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                       DATED : 08th JANUARY, 2026.
               P.C.:-

               1.      The learned Advocate appearing for respondents informs that
               present writ petition takes exception to rejection of nomination in
               election of Trust. He points out that after election, Change Report
               was submitted and same is accepted by Competent Authority. In
               that view of matter, prayers in Writ Petition do not survive for
               consideration.


               2.      The learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that
               keeping all remedies open, Writ Petition can be disposed of.


               3.      In that view of matter, Writ Petition stands disposed of.


               4.      The petitioners shall be at liberty to avail any alternate
               remedy as permissible under law and raise dispute before
               appropriate authority in appropriate proceeding.


                                                        (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                                 JUDGE
               Devendra/January-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…