M G Dawood Miakhan vs Election Commission Of India & Anr.

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
% Date of decision: 25 February, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 7099/2024 with CM APPL. 54054/2025

M G DAWOOD MIAKHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari,
Mr. G. Priyadharshni, Mr. Satyam
Pathak, Ms. Jasleen Kaur and
Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocates

versus

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing
Counsel for ECI/R-1
Mr. Haris Beeran, Mr. Sayid Marzook
Bafaki, Mr. Azhar Assees, Mr. Anand
B. Menon, Mr. Ranjay N., and Mr.
Rizwana R. Raj, Advocates for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the
th
impugned order dated 20 April, 2024 passed by respondent no.1/Election
th
Commission of India (‘ECI’) on the petitioner’s representation dated 29
January, 2024. A further direction is sought directing ECI to derecognise the
merger of Muslim League Kerala State Committee (‘MLKSC’) with Indian
Union Muslim League (‘IUML’) which has been approved/ratified by
rd rd
impugned order dated 3 March, 2012 and/or set aside the order dated 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:15:03
W.P.(C) 7099/2024 Page 1 of 6

March, 2012 passed by respondent no.1/ECI.
2. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, senior counsel for the petitioner, presses for
th
setting aside of the order dated 20 April, 2024 and remanding the matter to
ECI for a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s representation.
3. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is that IUML was
founded in the year 1948 and the same was registered as a political party. In
the year 1989, the Kerala unit of IUML got separated and registered itself as
a political party by the name of Muslim League Kerala State Committee
(MLKSC).
4. In the year 2004, the petitioner was wrongfully expelled from IUML.
The said expulsion was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Civil Suit
before High Court of Madras, being CS No.284/2006.
4.1 The aforesaid suit is still pending before Civil Court, Chennai.
5. A resolution was passed by the members of the IUML, respondent
th
no.2 in the National Executive Meeting dated 26 November, 2011 with
respect to merger of MLKSC with IUML. The said merger was approved by
rd
the Election Commission of India vide order dated 3 March, 2012.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid merger, the petitioner raised an issue with
the ECI in the year 2012. The aforesaid merger was challenged by one A.S.
Fathima Muzaffer by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) 1624/2012 before
th
this Court. Vide order dated 13 July, 2012, it was observed by this Court
that the merger of IUML with MLKSC will be subject to the final outcome
of the writ petition.
7. The petitioner made a representation against the merger with the
th
Election Commission of India on 13 October, 2014. In response thereto, a
th
communication was sent by Election Commission of India on 28
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:15:03
W.P.(C) 7099/2024 Page 2 of 6

December, 2015 stating that the issue raised by the petitioner is already
pending adjudication in W.P.(C) 1624/2012, filed by Ms. A.S. Fathima
Muzaffer.
th
8. On 27 September, 2021, the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn
by the petitioner therein.
9. Upon coming to know of the withdrawal of the said writ petition, the
rd
petitioner on 23 February, 2022 sent a legal notice to the Election
Commission of India raising objections with regard to the merger of IUML
and MLKSC.
10. Since the petitioner did not receive any response from the Election
Commission of India, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
rd
6313/2024 before this Court, challenging the merger order dated 3 March,
2012 passed by the Election Commission of India.
11. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order
th
dated 6 May, 2024, taking into account that the Election Commission of
th
India has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 20
April, 2024.
12. Accordingly, liberty was given to the petitioner to file a fresh writ
petition challenging the said rejection.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed.
14. A perusal of the amalgamation order passed by the Election
rd
Commission of India on 3 March, 2012, records that the petitioner had
objected to the merger. However, it was noted that since the petitioner was
not a member of the said party, he had no locus standi to question the
merger. Paragraph 7 of the said order is reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:15:03
W.P.(C) 7099/2024 Page 3 of 6

th
15. In the impugned order passed on 20 April, 2024, the representation
of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had no
locus standi in the matter.
16. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose submits that the impugned order had wrongfully
rejected the representation of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner
was a former member of the party who was wrongfully expelled. In this
regard, he has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 2 of the writ
petition, which is set out below:-

17. Mr. Ghose also places reliance on paragraph 16 of the Election
Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (‘Election Symbols
Order’) in support of his contention that any person who desires to be heard
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:15:03
W.P.(C) 7099/2024 Page 4 of 6

would have the locus to question the merger.
18. Per contra , Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha and Mr. Haris Beeran appearing
on behalf of respondents, contend that it has been correctly observed in the
impugned order that the petitioner did not have the locus to question the
merger between IUML and MLKSC. It is submitted that paragraph 16 of the
Election Symbols Order would have to be read in a manner that only persons
who are members of the two parties or are connected with them would have
the locus to challenge the same. Any other interpretation would open the
flood gates for anyone to challenge such orders.
19. At this stage, reference may be made to paragraph 16, which is set out
below:

20. Having carefully perused paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols
Order, I would tend to agree with the submissions put forth by the
respondents. The words “ any other persons as desire to be heard ” cannot be
seen in isolation. They would have to be interpreted by applying principles
of ejusdem generis i.e. general words following specific ones are confined in
meaning to the same class as the specific words. [Ref.: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal , (2010) 3
SCC 786]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:15:03
W.P.(C) 7099/2024 Page 5 of 6

Accordingly, “ and other persons as desire to be heard ” would only include
representatives of the newly formed party or any other
representatives/members of the two merging parties. A wider interpretation
would result in any busybody who is not involved with the two parties,
approaching the ECI and wanting to be heard.
21. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has
been expelled as a member of respondent no.2/IUML as far back in 2004.
The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid expulsion. However, the suit
filed by the petitioner is still pending with no interim order allowing the
petitioner to take part in the functioning of IUML. In fact, the interim order
passed in the said suit categorically states that the petitioner is restrained
from claiming to be in the State Unit of IUML and from using the IUML’s
name.
22. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner would not have the
locus to object to the merger in terms of paragraph 16 of the Election
Symbols Order. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the
th
Election Commission of India on 20 April, 2024.
23. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
24. Since this Court is dismissing the writ petition upholding the order
th
passed by Election Commission of India dated 20 April, 2024, which has
rejected the petitioner’s representation on the basis of locus , this Court has
not examined the merits of the merger order.


AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
ds
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:15:03
W.P.(C) 7099/2024 Page 6 of 6