JUDGMENT : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. 1. In the Election Petition, the petitioner stated that he was present in the office lobby/premises of the Returning Officer at 02:00 p.m. on 17 th November 2025 but could not reach the submission desk for submitting his nomination papers before 03:00 p.m. on that day due to heavy crowd. That was the last date for submission of the nomination form. 2. The District Judge-1, Baramati in the order dated 19 th November 2025 made an observation that candidates had gathered in the office of the Returning Officer who was herself trying to manage the crowd. There was one officer and some police personnel in her office assisting the Returning Officer who was seen accepting the papers. The Returning Officer made announcements on speaker and there were candidates raising their hands with papers. 3. Therefore, it is an admitted position that the respondent no.1 did not submit his nomination papers by the deadline. 4. A candidate had an opportunity to submit his nomination paper from 10 th November 2025 till 03:00 p.m. on 17 th November 2025. 5. In the supplementary affidavit, the respondent no.1 has stated that he was obstructed from contesting Nagar Parishad election due to political rivalry and external pressures. The Returning Officer being a quasi-judicial officer has no locus to file the present writ petition to challenge an order passed under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Elections Rules, 1966 and he is not an “aggrieved person”. 6. After having gone through the materials on record and supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, we have formed an opinion that the impugned order dated 25 th November 2025 is prima-facie unsustainable. Prima-facie, it appears that the District Judge-1, Baramati, District Pune had no jurisdiction to issue a direction to the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of the respondent no.1 with relevant documents on 26 th November 2025 till 03:00 p.m. at his designated office. By issuing such an order, the District Judge-1 has attempted to rewrite the applicable rules which is not permissible in law. However, Mr. Abhijit Desai, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has endeavored to persuade this Court that the judgment dated 25 th November 2025 has been rendered following the rules of natural justice. 7. By issuing such an order, the District Judge-1 has attempted to rewrite the applicable rules which is not permissible in law. However, Mr. Abhijit Desai, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has endeavored to persuade this Court that the judgment dated 25 th November 2025 has been rendered following the rules of natural justice. 7. In our opinion, in a matter like this where a deadline has been fixed, the rules of natural justice has no role to play and the District Judge-1, Baramati, District Pune could not have issued a direction to the Returning Officer as indicated in the judgment dated 25 th November 2025. Therefore, the operation and implementation of the judgment and order dated 25 th November 2025 passed in Election Petition No.1 of 2025 are stayed. 8. The nomination form of the respondent no.1 if submitted to the Returning Officer shall be excluded from consideration and, as a consequence of which, he shall not contest the election in Ward No.17A for Baramati Municipal Council. 9. Let pleadings be completed within four weeks. 10. Post the matter on 21 st January 2026 for final hearing.