Bombay High Court

DILIP HARAKCHAND JAIN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it could not entertain disputed factual questions and that such challenges must be raised in the election change report process.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the election of respondent No.3 held on 4 January 2026, alleging multiple irregularities, malpractice, and presenting photographs and CCTV footage of fraudulent practices. The petitioners did not appear before the court despite being called in two sessions. The court noted that it could not adjudicate disputed factual matters and that such contentions should be raised in the appropriate election change report proceedings. Consequently, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the merits. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate forum for challenging alleged election irregularities and malpractice?
Can the High Court entertain a writ petition that raises factual disputes without the petitioners appearing?

Subjects

election irregularities
election malpractice
writ petition
jurisdiction
factual dispute
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:14978




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  937 WRIT PETITION NO. 3745 OF 2026
                                 Dilip Harakchand Jain And Another
                                              VERSUS
                     State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others
                                                 ...
                               AGP for Respondents: Mrs. R.R.Tandale

                                            CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                           Dated     : April 08, 2026

                     PER COURT :-
                     1.      In the morning session, when the matter was called out,
                     none appeared for petitioners. In second session also, none
                     appeared.
                     2.      Perused prayers in the petition.
                     3.      The petitioners seeks to set aside the election of
                     respondent no.3 dated 4.1.2026 on the ground that there
                     were multiple irregularities and malpractice during the course
                     of election and there are some photographs and CCTV footage
                     regarding fraudulent practice adopted by the candidates.
                     Apparently, this Court cannot go into disputed questions of
                     fact and petitioners can raise all such contentions in case the
                     change report is filed in pursuance to elections.

                     2.      In that view of the matter, writ petition stands rejected.


                                                        ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
                                                      ...


                     aaa/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…