Bombay High Court
PRADEEP PANDURANG HANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’, but the Court’s indulgence does not constitute a direction for inclusion in the voters list or a waiver of procedural requirements.
Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Pandurang Hande, sought inclusion in the provisional and final voters list, invoking a writ petition that was left out of a group of 194 petitions decided on 12.08.2026. The Court noted that the petition was not filed timely and could not be given any premium for the petitioner’s lapses. While the Apex Court had extended the deadline by 60 days to 10.10.2026, the High Court clarified that such extension does not automatically entitle the petitioner to inclusion in the voters list. The Court emphasized that the petition’s allowance does not constitute a direction to bypass the normal election process or confer any equitable advantage. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’, but without any implication of inclusion in the voters list.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the petitioner’s procedural lapse and untimely filing on the relief sought?
- Does the extension of time by the Apex Court automatically entitle the petitioner to inclusion in the voters list?
- Can the Court’s indulgence in allowing the petition be construed as a direction to bypass the election process?
Subjects
- writ petition
- voters list
- procedural lapse
- time extension
- election process
- quashing liquidation order
Judgment
903 WP 4125 OF 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
903 WRIT PETITION NO. 4125 OF 2026
PRADEEP PANDURANG HANDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY DEPT. OF CO-
OPERATION AND ORS.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Bhooshan R. Mandlik a/w Mr. Shivam M.
Walekar
A.G.P. for Respondent/State L Mr. N.C. Walimbe Addl.G.P., Mr. P.V. Nelson
Rajan, A.G.P.
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Krishna Thakare
Advocate for Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Bhushan Jadhav
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 27.08.2026
PER COURT :
Heard learned counsels for both sides.
2. The issue involved in the petition is no more res integra. In fact, this
is a left out matter from the group of 194 petitions, which were decided by
common judgment and order pronounced on 12.08.2026. The present
petition is squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in quashing final
order of liquidation.
3. I propose to adopt the self-same reasons for allowing the petition in
terms of prayer clause ‘A’, as recorded in common judgment and order dated
12.08.2026 passed in group of petitions, led by Writ Petition No.
2522/2026.
4. However, it needs to be clarified that there are lapses on the part of
the petitioner and no timely steps were taken to prefer petition and to be in
1/2
903 WP 4125 OF 2026.odt
the group commonly decided by this Court. No premium can be given for
the lapses attributable to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even the Apex Court
extended time of 60 days to complete the process and accordingly cut-off
date is 10.10.2026.
6. The claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the provisional and final
voters list shall be examined independently on its own merits.
7. The indulgence granted by this Court by present minutes of the order
shall not be inferred to be any direction for inclusion of the petitioner in the
voters list or any excuse to by-pass the stages of the election process.
8. The petitioner shall not claim equities because his petition is allowed
by present minutes of the order.
9. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ as well as in
view of above clarification.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-
2/2
Checking your session…