6 months ago
2
The Bombay High Court connected Thursday dismissed an exertion filed by Pimpri (Scheduled Caste reserved) MLA Anna Dadu Bansode seeking to cull astatine the threshold an predetermination petition challenging his triumph successful the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly polls.
Justice Gauri Godse, successful an bid passed connected November 20, held that the petition disclosed a origin of enactment and complied with statutory requirements nether the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, and truthful warrants a afloat trial.
The exertion was filed nether Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, a proviso that lets courts cull a lawsuit astatine the commencement if the petition does not amusement immoderate valid crushed to proceed. The tribunal recovered that the petition met the requirements of Section 83 of the RP Act, 1951, which mandates that an predetermination petition indispensable see a wide connection of cardinal facts and due verification.
“By nary agelong of imagination, however, it tin beryllium said that the worldly fact, that is, the allegations regarding the situation to the predetermination connected the grounds contemplated nether Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Act person not been stated successful the petition for rejecting the petition astatine the threshold,” Justice Godse observed.
Poll irregularities
The predetermination petition, filed by Sulakshana Raju Dhar, who finished 2nd successful the November 20, 2024 predetermination with 72,575 votes against Mr. Bansode’s 1,09,239, alleged that the effect was materially affected by irregularities.
Ms. Dhar claimed Mr. Bansode suppressed details of assets and liabilities successful his information affidavit nether Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and that objections she raised connected October 30, 2024 were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. She besides alleged non-compliance with Section 61-A governing the usage of voting machines, stating that EVM-VVPAT units carried detachable stickers alternatively of imperishable serial numbers, raising concerns implicit compliance with mandatory safeguards. Her RTI petition for Form 17-C and video recordings of polling was denied connected January 2, 2025.
Mr. Bansode’s counsel argued that the petition was vague, defectively verified, and non-compliant with Sections 81 and 83, citing Supreme Court rulings specified arsenic Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal, Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar to contend that predetermination petitions are strictly statutory and indispensable acceptable retired worldly facts and afloat particulars.
Ms. Dhar’s counsel countered that the pleadings were based connected idiosyncratic cognition and observations, supported by gross records and annexures verified nether Section 83(2), with Form 25 filed arsenic required.
Justice Godse noted that the petition raised 2 sets of allegations: idiosyncratic plus disclosure and information objections and procedural EVM compliance and elector rotation irregularities, and that these, if proved, could materially impact the predetermination effect nether Section 100(1)(d)(i) (improper acceptance of nomination) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) (non-compliance with predetermination law).
The High Court distinguished betwixt “material facts” and “particulars,” holding that the erstwhile were adequately pleaded and that grounds tin beryllium led astatine trial.
The bid said, “Section 83(1) of the Act, work with Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code, person been pleaded by the petitioner, and the origin of enactment has been disclosed. Therefore, the petition cannot beryllium rejected astatine the threshold. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the Interim Application is dismissed.”
