1 month ago
1
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an predetermination petition alleging non-disclosure of accusation successful the predetermination affidavit cannot beryllium dismissed astatine the threshold if it raises issues that necessitate a trial. The precocious tribunal dismissed an exertion by a Shiv Sena MLA seeking rejection of a petition filed by the defeated campaigner from Sangamner constituency.
Justice Kishore C. Sant of the Bombay High Court dismissed an exertion filed by a returned candidate, a Shiv Sena MLA, seeking rejection of an predetermination petition nether Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code work with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The predetermination petition was filed by the defeated campaigner from Sangamner constituency. The petitioner alleged that the returned campaigner had suppressed his relation arsenic a spouse successful a steadfast named “Nilkamal” and had not disclosed liabilities, including taxation dues, successful the Form 26 affidavit. The petitioner contended that this non-disclosure amounted to a corrupt practice.
The tribunal examined whether the predetermination petition disclosed capable facts to warrant a trial. It noted that the petitioner had made circumstantial averments astir the suppression of the concern and the non-disclosure of taxation liabilities. These averments were supported by worldly obtained from the website of the Goods and Services Tax department. The tribunal besides noted that the petition stated that the campaigner had declared “nil” authorities dues contempt alleged outstanding liabilities.
The tribunal observed that the defence of the returned campaigner — including the assertion that the steadfast had been dissolved — could not beryllium examined astatine the signifier of deciding an exertion for rejection of the petition. Such issues, the tribunal said, are matters of grounds to beryllium tested during trial. The tribunal recovered that the petition contained capable averments to bring the lawsuit wrong the scope of Section 100(1)(b) and related provisions of the Act.
“The information signifier filled successful by the responsive No. 1 was not decently filled in, and specified signifier is accepted. Had the liabilities of the Nilkamal steadfast been shown successful the nomination, determination are chances that the voters would person noticed the same. In that case, determination was a anticipation of the predetermination being materially affected,” the tribunal observed.
While the tribunal did not find a prima-facie lawsuit connected definite allegations, specified arsenic undue power nether Section 101(b), it held that the beingness of triable issues connected different grounds was capable for the petition to proceed. The tribunal reiterated that an predetermination petition cannot beryllium rejected successful portion and indispensable proceed if it discloses immoderate triable issue.
“Since the plaint cannot beryllium rejected partly, determination is nary question of rejecting the petition astatine the threshold arsenic immoderate triable contented has been made out. There are capable averments successful the petition to amusement that the petition requires a trial,” the tribunal observed.
The tribunal dismissed the exertion seeking rejection of the predetermination petition and directed that the substance proceed for further consideration.
