Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Bombay High Court concerned an election petition filed by Anil Subhash Sawant challenging the election of Samadhan Mahadeo Autade as the returned candidate from constituency 252 Pandharpur in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections held on 20 November 2024. The petitioner secured 10,217 votes, while the returned candidate secured 1,25,163 votes. The petition was filed on 6 January 2025, within the limitation period under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner sought to set aside the election on five grounds: failure of the Returning Officer to issue the mandatory notification under Section 61A for use of electronic voting machines; non-supply of Form 17C and videography/CCTV footage despite an application under Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; irregularity in EVM-VVPAT serial numbers being affixed as detachable stickers rather than engraved in metal; sudden increase in voter list numbers within four months suggesting manipulation of electoral rolls; and non-distribution of voters' slips in poorer and minority localities. Initially, the Election Commission of India, Chief Electoral Officer, and Returning Officer were impleaded as respondents 24 to 26, but they were deleted from the array by order dated 15 January 2025. Respondent No. 1 filed Application (L) No. 12835 of 2025 on 22 April 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking rejection of the election petition. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 20 June 2025. The application was heard on 21 July 2025. The applicant argued that the petition should be rejected for non-compliance with Section 81 because it did not state grounds under Sections 100(1) and 101; that the allegations were vague and did not disclose any corrupt practice by the returned candidate under Sections 100(1)(d)(iii) or (iv); that the petitioner failed to plead material facts and full particulars as required by Section 83; that the array of parties violated Section 82 by impleading all contesting candidates without seeking a declaration of the petitioner's own election; and that the petition did not demonstrate that the result of the election was materially affected by the alleged irregularities. The applicant relied on Supreme Court decisions including Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, Manganilal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, Shambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas Mahant, Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar. The provided judgment text concludes during the applicant's submissions and does not contain the court's analysis, reasoning, or final decision. Therefore, the outcome of the application is not mentioned in the extracted text.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Maintainability of Election Petition - Section 81, 83, 86, 100(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC sought rejection of election petition for non-disclosure of cause of action and non-compliance with statutory pleading requirements; petition alleged grounds including non-issuance of Section 61A notification, non-supply of Form 17C and footage, EVM serial number irregularities, voter list manipulation, and non-distribution of voters' slips - No final decision provided in the extracted text (Paras 1-7). B) Election Law - Grounds for Setting Aside Election - Section 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioner alleged corrupt practices and improper reception or rejection of votes but did not provide full particulars of corrupt practices or show how returned candidate was involved; applicant contended grounds were vague and failed to establish that result was materially affected - No final decision provided (Paras 3, 7). C) Election Law - Electronic Voting Machines - Section 61A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioner alleged Returning Officer failed to issue mandatory notification for use of EVMs and that serial numbers were not engraved in metal; applicant argued amendments and Supreme Court decision in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India support use of voting machines - No final decision provided (Paras 3, 7). D) Election Law - Impleading of Parties - Section 82, Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioner impleaded all contesting candidates as respondents though not seeking declaration of own election; applicant contended this was contrary to Section 82 - No final decision provided (Paras 1, 7). E) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Applicant sought rejection of election petition for want of cause of action and absence of material facts; relied on precedents including Manganilal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, (2012) 3 SCC 314 and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 573 - No final decision provided (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Election Petition disclosed a cause of action and complied with mandatory provisions of Sections 81, 82, 83, 86, 100(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether it was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text; the judgment text does not include a final ruling.
Law Points
- Election petition must disclose cause of action and comply with Sections 81
- 82
- 83
- 86
- 100 of Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- allegations of corrupt practice require full particulars
- non-compliance with Section 82 by impleading all contesting candidates without seeking declaration
- use of EVMs permissible under Section 61A
- absence of material facts leads to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
