Sangamner Seat Standoff: Bombay HC Greenlights Trial Over Alleged Hidden Firm Ties and Tax Arrears

In a pivotal ruling from its Aurangabad bench, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an application by victorious Maharashtra Legislative Assembly candidate Amol Dhondiba Khatal to summarily throw out an election petition filed by runner-up Vijay Alias Balasaheb Bhausaheb Thorat. Justice Kishore C. Sant ruled that allegations of suppressing a partnership in the firm Nilkamal—complete with over Rs54,000 in professional tax dues—raise serious triable issues under Sections 100(1)(b) and (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) . The decision keeps the challenge to the November 2024 Sangamner (Constituency 217) poll alive, with Thorat seeking to void Khatal's win and claim the seat himself.

From Poll Drums to Court Drums: The Sangamner Election Timeline

The drama unfolded in the Maharashtra Assembly elections held on November 4, 2024 , with results declared on November 23 . Khatal emerged victorious by a margin of 10,560 votes out of over 2.19 lakh counted, edging out Thorat. Thorat filed his election petition on January 3, 2025 , within the 45-day limit under Section 81 RP Act , accusing Khatal of filing an incomplete Form 26 affidavit alongside his nomination on October 29, 2024 .

Key allegations centered on Khatal declaring his income source as "Sai Enterprises" (unregistered for professional tax) while allegedly concealing his role in Nilkamal—a firm with an active professional tax enrollment since 2015 and arrears of Rs25,000 principal plus Rs29,650 interest as per Maharashtra GST portal data downloaded by Thorat. Khatal marked government dues as "Nil," prompting claims of corrupt practice , improper nomination acceptance, and non-compliance with election rules, materially affecting the result given the narrow margin.

Petitioner's Volley: Suppression Tainted the Ballot

Thorat's counsel, Senior Advocate R.N. Dhorde , argued the petition was complete upon filing, with copies (not mandating certified ones) annexed from RTI queries to GST authorities. He stressed voters' right to full disclosure under Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018), insisting Khatal's non-disclosure of Nilkamal's dues and Sai Enterprises' details rendered Form 26 defective. No need to prove material effect for improper acceptance claims under Section 100(1)(d)(i) , he said, and the close margin plus GST portal evidence (firm status "active" as of January 2025) warranted trial. Verification details, including laptop source, met Rule 94-A standards.

Returned Candidate's Counterpunch: Vague Claims, No Substance

Khatal, represented by Senior Advocate V.D. Hon , sought dismissal under Order VII Rule 11(a),(d) CPC read with Section 86(1) RP Act , labeling allegations "vague" sans dates, places, or proof of corrupt practice post-nomination scrutiny ( October 30, 2024 —no objections raised). Nilkamal dissolved pre-2019, GST cancelled January 9 , 2019; no positive averment of ongoing partnership. Margin too wide without vote influence calculus; non-disclosure not corrupt under Section 123 . Petition incomplete on filing (missing docs, unpaginated index), barred by limitation for amendments adding material facts.

Bench's Balancing Act: Precedents Tip Toward Trial

Justice Sant meticulously sifted precedents, rejecting overly "penal" approaches to non-disclosure per Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723) and Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang (2024 SCC OnLine SC 519)—mere "Nil" income entries sans asset concealment aren't fatal. Yet, Dhartipakar Mandalal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577) and Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310 demand strict Section 83 compliance for corrupt claims.

Crucially, Madiraju Vyankata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy (2018) 14 SCC 1 and Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao (2023) 18 SCC 231 guided holistic reading: GST portal evidence prima facie showed suppression of liabilities, attracting Section 100(1)(b) corrupt practice and improper acceptance. Office objections (non-joinder of EC/RO—unnecessary per Section 82 ; pagination—trivial) didn't doom the petition. No partial rejection; triable cause exists.

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • On Suppression's Weight : "This Court prima facie finds that this clearly attracts the ingredients of Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act ."
  • Holistic Scrutiny : "The Court cannot dissect an election petition sentence-wise or paragraph-wise but has to read the plaint as a whole to see whether a cause of action is disclosed." ( Madiraju cited)
  • Voter Impact : "Had the liabilities of Nilkamal firm been shown in the nomination, there are chances that the voters would have noticed the said. In that case, there was possibility of election being materially affected."
  • No Threshold Dismissal : "Since the plaint cannot be rejected partly, there is no question of rejecting the petition at the threshold as some triable issue has been made out."

Verdict Delivered: Trial Beckons, Status Quo Shaken

Dismissing Exhibit-23 on March 30, 2026 (reserved January 9 ), the court ordered: "Application (Exhibit-23) in Election Petition stands dismissed." The main petition advances to May 7, 2026 . This sets a precedent for probing affidavit suppressions via public portals, potentially swaying close-margin contests. For Sangamner's voters, the real count may yet revisit the hustings' narrow verdict—underscoring election law's high stakes on transparency.