JUDGMENT : 1. It was on 3 rd November 2025 that a batch of writ petitions were heard by this Court. As the proceedings in Writ Petition No.11880 of 2025 and analogous cases would indicate that several other petitions were transferred to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court from its Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad and Circuit Bench at Kolhapur. Those matters were heard on 4 th and 7 th November 2025. 2. We may also indicate that in the order dated 16 th September 2025 passed in a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19756 of 2021 titled Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has indicated that the parties may make a request for clubbing of the writ petitions. However, no such request for clubbing of all the writ petitions pending at different Benches of the Bombay High Court was made. There was a batch of about 50 cases; Writ Petition No.11880 of 2025 being the lead petition, which were heard together on several dates and judgment has been reserved on 9 th December 2025. Today, 36 matters have been transferred to the Principal Seat. We may also indicate that the writ petitions are continued to be filed even today and the matters are being mentioned and prayer for interim relief is made. 3. A request for hearing the matters for grant of an interim order has been made in these matters, except a few matters in which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, pleadings are complete. However, it is admitted at the Bar that no interim order was granted in those matters by the Court. 4. We are also conscious that interference with any order passed by the Election Commission or the statutory authority or under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Elections Rules, 1996 is not permissible in view of the notification for elections, expiry of cut-off date for submitting nomination forms, the judgment of the Full Bench in Karma Veer Tulshiram Autade & Ors. v. State Election Commission, Mumbai & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 37 and other statutory/constitutional limitations. We understand that the aggrieved persons have approached this Court well within time in almost all the writ petitions, but then, any interim order cannot be passed in these matters without taking a reply-affidavit from the respondents. v. State Election Commission, Mumbai & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 37 and other statutory/constitutional limitations. We understand that the aggrieved persons have approached this Court well within time in almost all the writ petitions, but then, any interim order cannot be passed in these matters without taking a reply-affidavit from the respondents. There are serious objections to maintainability of the writ petition and non-joinder of necessary parties. In Lakshmi Charan Sen & Ors. v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 689, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that directions cannot be postponed for the reason that certain claims and objections have remained to be disposed of. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that a writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Judge allowing a challenge to the rejection or acceptance of the nomination form shall also not lie. The remedy for the aggrieved person is now to file election petition after the result is declared. 5. At this stage, this is relevant to indicate that by an order dated 4 th November 2025 in Writ Petition No.11880 of 2025, interim order was declined by this Court. 6. Having regard to the circumstances in the case, the statutory provisions and the constitutional bar, we are not inclined to hear the petitioners on grant of interim relief and such a prayer is declined. 7. Issue notice to the respondents in all these matters, returnable in three weeks. 8. Post these matters on 14 th January 2026 under the heading “For Final Disposal.”