<p>Mumbai: The Bombay High Court rejected a petition, which mentioned alleged irregularities in the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, especially over the "unusually large" percentage of votes cast after the closing hours.</p><p>A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor refused to entertain the writ petition filed by Mumbai resident Chetan Chandrakant Ahire.</p><p>Veteran lawyer-politician Prakash Ambedkar, who is the founder of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, appeared for the petitioner.</p>.Bombay HC upholds Shiv Sena MLA Rajendra Gavit’s election .<p>Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni represented the Election Commission, while Advocate Uday Warunjikar represented the Union of India.</p><p>The petitioner moved the HC seeking an order that the results declared across all 288 assembly constituencies in the state be set aside due to alleged violations in the polling process.</p><p>“We have no doubt that this petition needs to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. A whole day of this court was wasted in hearing the petition. Although costs should be imposed on them, we refrain from doing so,” the bench said.</p><p>"The judgment in the Chetan Chandrakant Ahire vs Union of India & Ors has come. The Division Bench has rejected the petition. Once the judgement is uploaded and I have read on what grounds it has been rejected, I will give my reaction,” said Ambedkar, adding that he would speak on it on Thursday. </p><p>The petition challenged the legitimacy of approximately 76 lakh votes allegedly cast after the official poll-closing time of 6 pm.</p><p>Ambedkar further contended that the returning officers neglected Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines by not reporting these apparent mismatches.</p><p>Kumbhakioni pointed out that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Assembly poll results in a writ petition.</p><p>Warunjikar contended that the petitioner should have filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act within the 45-day window following the results, however, he chose to file a writ petition outside this permitted timeframe and without designating it as PIL.</p>
<p>Mumbai: The Bombay High Court rejected a petition, which mentioned alleged irregularities in the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, especially over the "unusually large" percentage of votes cast after the closing hours.</p><p>A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor refused to entertain the writ petition filed by Mumbai resident Chetan Chandrakant Ahire.</p><p>Veteran lawyer-politician Prakash Ambedkar, who is the founder of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, appeared for the petitioner.</p>.Bombay HC upholds Shiv Sena MLA Rajendra Gavit’s election .<p>Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni represented the Election Commission, while Advocate Uday Warunjikar represented the Union of India.</p><p>The petitioner moved the HC seeking an order that the results declared across all 288 assembly constituencies in the state be set aside due to alleged violations in the polling process.</p><p>“We have no doubt that this petition needs to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. A whole day of this court was wasted in hearing the petition. Although costs should be imposed on them, we refrain from doing so,” the bench said.</p><p>"The judgment in the Chetan Chandrakant Ahire vs Union of India & Ors has come. The Division Bench has rejected the petition. Once the judgement is uploaded and I have read on what grounds it has been rejected, I will give my reaction,” said Ambedkar, adding that he would speak on it on Thursday. </p><p>The petition challenged the legitimacy of approximately 76 lakh votes allegedly cast after the official poll-closing time of 6 pm.</p><p>Ambedkar further contended that the returning officers neglected Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines by not reporting these apparent mismatches.</p><p>Kumbhakioni pointed out that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Assembly poll results in a writ petition.</p><p>Warunjikar contended that the petitioner should have filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act within the 45-day window following the results, however, he chose to file a writ petition outside this permitted timeframe and without designating it as PIL.</p>