Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an election petition filed by Satish Mahadeorao Uke challenging the election of Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis, the returned candidate from the 52-SouthWest Nagpur Assembly Constituency in the 2014 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections. The petition was grounded on Sections 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging improper acceptance of the nomination paper by the Returning Officer. The core allegation was that the respondent had failed to disclose in his affidavit in Form No.26, required under Section 33A of the Act, accurate information regarding pending criminal cases in which charges had been framed by a competent court. The petitioner contended that such non-disclosure was a failure to comply with Section 33A, amounting to a defect of substantial character, and that the nomination ought to have been rejected under Section 36(2)(b). Consequently, the result of the election was claimed to have been materially affected. In response, the returned candidate (respondent) filed a written statement and also moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the election petition. The application raised two main objections: first, that the election petition did not contain a statement of material facts showing how the result of the election was materially affected, and therefore failed to disclose a cause of action; second, that the election petition and the documents annexed thereto were not verified in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including Section 33, Section 33A, Section 36, and Section 100, as well as the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The factual matrix from the pleadings showed that the nomination paper and attached affidavit had been scrutinised, and the petitioner alleged omission of certain criminal cases. The court reserved its order on 10 July 2015 and pronounced the order on 19 August 2015. The text of the judgment available is incomplete and does not contain the final determination of the application.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code for failure to disclose a cause of action by not stating material facts on how the election result was materially affected, and for improper verification of the petition and annexed documents.
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 145
Civil Application No.993 of 2015 in Election Petition No.1 of 2014
Petitioner in person; Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate with Deven Chauhan for Respondent No.1
Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election petition challenging election of returned candidate on grounds of improper acceptance of nomination paper due to non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in the affidavit filed with nomination.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declaration of election as void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Filing Reason
Allegation that respondent No.1 failed to disclose certain criminal cases where charges had been framed, which was required under Section 33A, thereby nomination should have been rejected under Section 36(2)(b).
Issues
Whether the election petition discloses a cause of action regarding material effect on election result due to improper acceptance of nomination.
Whether the petition and annexed documents are properly verified as per Code of Civil Procedure.
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent No.1 argued that the election petition does not contain any statement of material facts showing how the result of the election was materially affected, and in the absence of such facts, the petition does not disclose any cause of action.
The respondent No.1 further argued that the election petition and the documents annexed are not verified in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Judgment Excerpts
The substance of the averments made in the election petition is that the respondent No.1 has failed to disclose in his affidavit in Form No.26 submitted alongwith his nomination paper delivered under Section 33(1) of the said Act, the information, as required under Section 33A(1)(i) and (2) of the said Act, in respect of certain offences in which he is accused in a case pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
the present election petition does not contain statement of material facts as to how the result of the election is materially affected, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate. In the absence of these materials facts, the petition does not disclose any cause of action
the election petition and the documents annexed are not verified in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure
A nomination can be rejected on several grounds mentioned in Section 36(2)(a) to (c) and clause (b), which is relevant, is that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of Section 33 or Section 34 of the said Act.
Procedural History
The election petition was filed. The respondent No.1 filed written statement and also moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for rejection of the petition on the grounds of absence of material facts and improper verification. The court heard the arguments and reserved the order on 10-07-2015. The order was pronounced on 19-08-2015.
Acts & Sections
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: 30, 32, 33(1), 33A(1)(i) and (2), 36(2)(a)-(c), (3), (4), 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv)
- Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961: Rule 4, Rule 4A, Form 2B, Form 26
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(a)
- Constitution of India: Articles 84, 102, 173, 191
- Government of Union Territories Act, 1963: Sections 4 and 14
