Bombay High Court holds BJP candidate’s nomination form for Vashi ward 17-A election valid, quashes ‘patently illegal’ rejection, vacates stay

The returning officer had passed a decision based on a complaint by Kishor Patkar, the district chief of the Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, that Bhojane carried out unauthorised construction.

A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad passed an order on a plea by Bhojane, argued through Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, who said the order by the RO was “ex facie illegal,” therefore, the same be quashed by declaring the petitioner eligible to contest the election for the post of a “councillor.

The petitioner argued that Section 10(1D) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (disqualification for councillors involved with illegal or unauthorised structures), based on which the nomination form was refused, will apply to a sitting councillor and not to a candidate who seeks to contest the election for a councillor’s post.

On January 8, the Bombay High Court stayed the election to Ward Number 17-A pending hearing of the plea and observed that there was no restriction on entertaining a plea that showed an illegal and arbitrary exercise of powers by the Election Returning Officer (RO).

On Friday, Senior Advocate Anil Y Sakhare, representing Sena leader Patkar, sought the plea’s dismissal, and submitted that Ward Number 17 was a four-councillor ward in which every voter has a right to cast four votes, and if the elections were stalled and held on subsequent dates, the voters would have to come again and cast their vote.

Advocate Tejesh Dande, for the RO, submitted that the court may permit the continuation of the elections, and that necessary arrangements will be made if the HC vacates the stay.

The State Election Commission (SEC), in its reply, stated that preparation of EVMs by affixing ballot papers was in progress, and it was not possible to accept the nomination of the petitioner and to permit him to contest the election at this stage.

After hearing submissions, the bench referred to past judicial precedents of the Bombay HC, and observed, “A consistent view has been taken that disqualification under section 10 (1D) of the MMC Act shall not  apply to a candidate at the state of his/her filing of nomination paper.”

“The impugned order dated December 31, 2025, is patently illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The nomination papers submitted by the petitioner are held to be valid. We hereby direct RO to include the petitioner’s name in the list of candidates who shall be permitted to contest the election from ward 17-A,” the HC noted in its order.