Nagpur: In a significant development, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the order of the District Collector and directed that a decision be made within three days in a case involving the alleged fraudulent transfer of a voter’s name between two assembly constituencies.
The petitioner, Sanjay Raut, claimed that his name was unlawfully shifted from the 48-Katol Assembly Constituency to the 50-Hingna Assembly Constituency without his knowledge or consent. Raut alleged that the move was a deliberate attempt to prevent him from contesting elections.
The controversy erupted during the ongoing voter list revision process, following the state government’s announcement of elections for municipal corporations and councils across Maharashtra. As part of this exercise, draft voter lists were released and objections were invited.
Gold Rate
06Oct 2025
Raut noticed his name missing from the Katol constituency’s electoral roll and filed a complaint with the District Election Officer (DEO). When no action was taken, he approached the High Court, accusing officials of negligence and pointing to possible foul play.
His counsel, Senior Advocate Akshay Naik, argued that the Form 8 application — the document allegedly used to shift Raut’s name — did not bear his signature. Naik further submitted that it appeared someone had fraudulently filed the transfer request on Raut’s behalf.
Collector’s Decision Challenged
Raut had earlier filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, before the District Collector. However, on October 30, 2025, the Collector refused to entertain the appeal, directing Raut instead to file a fresh application under Section 22 of the same Act for correction of entries.
Finding this order unsatisfactory and procedural in nature, Raut approached the High Court.
During the hearing on Thursday, the High Court observed that the actions of the election officials appeared to show an attempt to “prevent the petitioner from contesting the election.”
The bench noted inconsistencies in the handling of Raut’s application and said the matter reflected serious lapses in the functioning of local election authorities.
The court subsequently set aside the Collector’s order and remanded the case back to the District Election Officer, directing that Raut’s appeal be heard on merit and decided within three days.
This order is likely to have broader implications, as concerns over voter list manipulation and electoral integrity continue to grow across the state ahead of the upcoming local body elections.
