ADAM NARSAYYA NARAYAN 34/260, BAPUJI NAGAR, "JODGALA", UTTAR SADAR BAZAAR, SOLAPUR Vs. PRANITI SHINDE CANDIDATE OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS JAI JUI, 19, ASHOK NAGAR VIJAPUR ROAD, SOLAPUR
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Adam Narsayya Narayan 34/260, Bapuji Nagar, AndQuot;JodgalaAndQuot;, Uttar Sadar Bazaar, Solapur
Praniti Shinde Candidate Of The Indian National Congress Jai Jui, 19, Ashok Nagar Vijapur Road, Solapur
Click here to view full judgement.
R. M. Savant, J. -
(1.) The Respondent No.1 to the above Election Petition - Praniti Shinde i.e. the returned candidate has filed the instant Application for the following relief :
a) Summarily dismiss the above Election Petition in view of the facts, circumstances and grounds set out in the above application
(2.) The dismissal of the above Election Petition is sought interalia on the following grounds:-
i. Three copies of the Election Petition not duly attested;
ii. Photo copies of the court fees stamps affixed on the original Election Petition are not reflected in the copies served on the Respondent No.1.
iii. Official transcript of the Compact Discs (CDs) not furnished to the Respondent No.1
iv. Date of verification not mentioned in the verification in support of the Index and the synopsis v] Allegations of corrupt practise made in the Election Petition are vague and lacking in material facts and material particulars. The Election Petitioner does not have personal knowledge and the allegations are based on hearsay.
vi. In the copies of the Petition served upon the Respondent No.1, the court fees affixed on the original are missing.
vii. The copy served on the Respondent No.1 is not attested by the Petitioner under his signature as true copy of the Election Petition.
viii. The copy served on the Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be true copy of the original Election Petition.
ix. The documents annexed to the Petition are neither verified nor supported by any affidavit.
x. The affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practise is not as per requirement of Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961.
(3.) In the context of the application filed by the Respondent No.1 it would be apposite to briefly refer to the grounds averred in the Election Petition. The above Election Petition has been filed by the Election Petitioner questioning the election of the Respondent No.1 - Praniti Shinde from Solapur City Central Assembly Constituency No.249 in the elections held to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in the year 2014. It has been averred in the Petition that the Respondent No.1 has secured 46907 votes whereas the Election Petitioner has secured 13904 votes. The election of the Respondent No.1 has been challenged on the basis of the allegations of corrupt practise particularly stated in paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 of the Election Petition.
In so far as paragraph 12 is concerned, the incident of the election agent of the Respondent No.1 Mr.Prakash Yalgulwar being caught redhanded by the flying squad of the Election Commission with cash of Rs.Six lakhs in Room No.103 of Hotel Pratham which is located in Constituency No.249 has been narrated.
In paragraph 16 the alleged incident which took place on 11.10.2014 in a Beedi factory called Langar Beedi factory within the Constituency No.249, wherein 4 agents of the Respondent No.1 were caught redhanded distributing cash to persons to induce them to vote in favour of the Respondent No.1 find a place. It is further averred in the said paragraph 16 that the said 4 persons were caught by the members of the flying squad No.6 of the Election Commission possessing cash of Rs.2.21 lakhs and the election posters/pamphlets of the Respondent No.1 which they were distributing to persons.
In so far as paragraph 17 is concerned, in the said paragraph the alleged incident which took place on 14.10.2014 in a sweet factory called Sharma Sweets located in Constituency No.249 in which it has been averred that the activists/workers of Shiv Sena caught the agents of the Respondent No.1 redhanded, distributing cash to persons to induce them to vote in favour of the Respondent No.1. It was further averred that despite complaining about the same to the police as well as the Returning Officer, no action was taken.
Except the said paragraphs 12, 16 and 17, other paragraphs of the Election Petition do not concern the Respondent No.1. In the said paragraphs general statements have been made, as also the allegations made against the other Respondents find a place. However, as indicated herein above the Election Petition has been filed challenging the election of the Respondent No.1 and seeking the reliefs which are sought vide prayer clauses (a) and (b) in paragraph 29 of the Election Petition which are to the following effect :
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the agents and the election agent of the Respondent No.1 have committed corrupt practices within the meaning of section 123 of the Representation of People Act, with the consent of and at the behest of Respondent No.1.;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare as null and void and be pleased to set aside, the election of Respondent No.1 to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha), held on 15.10.2014 and declared elected on 19.10.2014, from Solapur City Central Assembly Constituency No.249; due to commission of corrupt practices by the agents and the election agent of Respondent No.1 with the consent of and at the behest of Respondent No.1; and due to noncompliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules and Order made under the said Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.