Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election for the 179 Sion-Koliwada constituency. The petitioner, an Indian National Congress candidate, filed Election Petition No. 36 of 2025 on 30 December 2024, challenging the election of the returned candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 125A. The Election Commission notified the schedule for the 2024 General Elections to the State Assembly; nominations were filed, scrutiny occurred, and polling took place on 20 November 2024 with counting on 23 November 2024. The petitioner secured 65,534 votes while the respondent secured 73,429 votes and was declared elected. The petitioner challenged the election on three main grounds: non-disclosure of an immovable asset acquired through a housing loan worth Rs.90 lakhs; non-disclosure of an arbitration award of Rs.2,72,60,559/- passed against the respondent in favour of Central Railways; and non-disclosure of liabilities under Column 10(i) in Form 26 of the nomination affidavit. In response, the respondent filed Application No. 10 of 2025 under Section 86 of the RP Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the election petition for want of cause of action and failure to state material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. Before the Bombay High Court, the respondent's senior counsel argued that the petition did not contain a concise statement of material facts and was based on vague allegations. On the first ground, he submitted that the respondent and his daughter jointly applied for a housing loan but the flat was purchased solely in the daughter's name and the loan was serviced solely by her; therefore, no individual liability existed to disclose. On the second ground, he pointed out that the arbitration award had been stayed by the Bombay High Court on 11 March 2020, so no undisclosed government due subsisted. On the third ground, he argued that the petitioner failed to annex cogent documents such as the CRIF report available before filing and that the CIBIL report obtained later did not reflect the position as on the date of filing Form 26; the respondent also contended that the total disclosed liability of Rs.51,97,351 included other loans already disclosed. He further submitted that allegations about lease registration were an afterthought and contrary to Section 83 of the RP Act. Relying on Sections 100(1)(d)(iv), 33(A), 125(A) and Rule 4(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, he argued that no non-compliance with the Constitution, the RP Act, or rules was pleaded, and the petitioner failed to show how any alleged non-compliance materially affected the election result. He therefore sought dismissal of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The court heard the application by consent. The available judgment text ends with the respondent's submissions and does not include the court's final analysis or operative order; therefore, no final decision or ratio decidendi could be extracted from the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Rejection of Election Petition - Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 86 RP Act - Whether election petition fails to disclose cause of action due to lack of concise statement of material facts under Section 83(1)(a) RP Act - Respondent contended that petition contained vague allegations and no demonstration of material effect on election result; no final holding in available excerpt (Paras 8-8.9). B) Election Law - Non-disclosure of Immovable Asset - Section 100(1)(d)(iv) and Section 33(A) RP Act, Rule 4(A) Conduct of Election Rules 1961 - Petitioner alleged non-disclosure of housing loan of Rs.90 lakhs; Respondent contended loan taken jointly with daughter but property solely in daughter's name and loan serviced by daughter, thus no individual liability to disclose - Court was to consider whether this ground survives; no final holding in excerpt (Paras 6, 8.1). C) Election Law - Non-disclosure of Arbitration Award - Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act - Petitioner alleged suppression of arbitration award of Rs.2,72,60,559/- passed against respondent in favour of Central Railways; Respondent contended award stayed by Bombay High Court on 11.03.2020, hence not a subsisting undisclosed Government due - no final holding in excerpt (Paras 6, 8.2). D) Election Law - Non-disclosure of Liabilities in Form 26 - Section 33(A), 125A RP Act, Rule 4(A) Conduct of Election Rules 1961 - Petitioner alleged non-disclosure under Column 10(i); Respondent contended no cogent evidence, CRIF/CIBIL reports not annexed to petition and status irrelevant to date of nomination - no final holding in excerpt (Paras 6, 8.3-8.4). E) Election Law - Materially Affecting Election Result - Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act - Respondent argued that sine qua non for trial under election petition is pleading showing how alleged non-compliance materially affected election result; no such pleading present - no final holding (Paras 8.8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Election Petition No. 36 of 2025 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 86 RP Act for want of cause of action and failure to state material facts; whether the grounds of non-disclosure of housing loan, arbitration award, and liabilities in Form 26 constitute non-compliance with the Constitution, RP Act, or rules under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act; whether petitioner can rely on documents not annexed to the petition in reply to a rejection application
Law Points
- Election petition must contain concise statement of material facts under Section 83(1)(a) RP Act
- absence of cause of action leads to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- non-disclosure of stayed arbitration award not subsisting liability
- material effect on election result must be pleaded for avoidance under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act
- false affidavit penalty under Section 125A RP Act requires specific proof
