Court Denies Summary Dismissal, Cites Sufficient Grounds for Trial on Allegations of Material Non-Disclosure Affecting Election Outcome
The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench has dismissed an application seeking the summary dismissal of an election petition filed against Vijay Alias Balasaheb Bhausaheb Thorat, the elected candidate from Constituency No. 217 - Sangamner, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The petition, filed by the defeated candidate Amol Dhondiba Khatal, alleges improper acceptance of Thorat's nomination form due to non-disclosure of material facts, including professional tax dues and partnership details, potentially influencing the election's outcome.
Justice Kishore C. Sant emphasized the need for a detailed trial, given the sufficient disclosure of triable issues in the petition. The court noted that the allegations, if proven, could materially affect the election result, thus warranting further examination. The court was presented with claims that Thorat failed to disclose his partnership in a firm named Nilkamal and the associated professional tax dues, which were alleged to have been misrepresented in the nomination form. This, Khatal argued, constituted a corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of The People Act, 1951, and materially affected the election under Section 100(1)(d)(i).
Thorat's defense argued for dismissal, citing insufficient cause of action and the petition's alleged failure to demonstrate how the election was materially affected. However, the court found the petition's averments sufficient to proceed to trial, particularly concerning the alleged non-disclosure of liabilities and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
The court's decision underscores the importance of transparency in the electoral process, emphasizing the voter's right to informed choice. The trial will further investigate the claims of improper nomination acceptance and its potential impact on the election.
The case is set for further proceedings on May 7, 2026, as the court moves to address the substantive issues raised.
Bottom Line:
Election petition alleging improper acceptance of nomination form due to suppression of material facts, including professional tax dues and partnership in a firm, requires a trial as sufficient cause of action is disclosed.
Statutory provision(s): Representation of The People Act, 1951 Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv), 101(b); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VII Rule 11; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 Rule 4(A) and Form 26
