Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1871
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.T. JOSHI, J.
Shri Manohar - Petitioner
Vs.
Shri Kunal (Baba) and Ors. – Respondent
ELECTION PETITION NO. 14 OF 2014
Decided On : 26/10/2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.D. Hon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.D. Bachate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate i/b. and with Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Mr. Santosh S. Patil, Mr. Y.B. Bolkar, Mr. P.D. Patil, Smt. R.K. Ladda, AGP
Candidates are required to disclose assets and liabilities in the nomination form, and suppression of material information may lead to disqualification.
Headnote:
Suppression of Assets - Election Petition - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 9A, Section 100 - The court discussed the provisions of section 9A and section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and referenced landmark decisions such as 'Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms', 'Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.', and 'Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India'. The court emphasized the requirement for candidates to disclose assets and liabilities and the implications of suppression of material information in the nomination form.
Fact of the Case:
The Election Petition sought to declare the election of the respondent as void due to suppression of assets and liabilities in the nomination form.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not suppress any material information regarding his assets or liabilities, and the nomination was not improperly accepted.
Issues: Suppression of assets and liabilities in the nomination form, disqualification under section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement for candidates to disclose assets and liabilities, the interpretation of material information, and the implications of suppression of information.
Final Decision: The Election Petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Heard both sides.
2. The present Election Petition is filed to seek a declaration that the election of the present respondent no.1 to the Office of Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 6 Dhule Rural Legislative Assembly Constituency in the State of Maharashtra declared on 19/10/2014 is void and further to declare that the petitioner, who was also one of the candidate, be declared as duly elected to the said Office.
3. Respondent nos.2 to 9 were also nominated as candidates to the said election and, therefore, they are joined as parties. None of them however has filed any written statement. respondent no.1 – Shri Kunal (Baba) S/o Rohidas Patil had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present election petition and lateron on 6/8/2015, Mr. P.M. Shah, learned senior counsel i/b. Mr. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 made a statement at the bar that all the factual aspects as pleaded in the petition and the annexures thereto are admitted by respondent no.1 and, therefore, he agreed that instead of recording any evidence, the election petition itself can be heard finally. Under the circumstances, both the sides were heard on merit of the petition.
4. In essence, it was pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent no.1 in his affidavit, which was filed alongwith the nomination form, has suppressed his assets and liabilities and has also not disclosed that the contract subsists between him and the appropriate Government i.e. the Government of Maharashtra which was entered in due course of his business. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, he was disqualified from contesting the election.
5. There is no dispute between the parties that if the assets and liabilities which are substantive in nature are not included in the affidavit annexed to the nomination form, then the nomination is required to be rejected and, therefore, election can be declared as void as per the provisions of section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
6. The philosophy and history requiring the filing of the affidavit with the nomination form need not be repeated here. Suffice to say that the Supreme Court of India in the landmark decision in the case of “Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and another” 2002 (5) SCC 294 has directed the Election Commission of India to issue necessary orders to call for information on affidavit from each candidates, as detailed therein.
. Further, in the case of “Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.” (2003) 4 SCC 399, interalia it is declared that the contrary provisions made thereafter being section 32B of the Representation of the People (3rd amendment) Act, 2002, as constitutionally invalid.
. Further, in the case of “Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India” 2014 AIR(SC) 344, it was directed to the Election Commission of India to make it compulsory for the Returning Officers to ensure that the affidavits filed by the contestants are complete in all respects and to reject the affidavits having blank particulars.
7. In pursuance of the directions from the Supreme Court, Rule 4A was added to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 by the Election Commission of India further providing for form of affidavit to be filled in as per Form No.26.
8. In nutshell the submission of the petitioner are that in the said form filled in by the present respondent no.1, he had not given the following information :
i) Ownership of seven agricultural properties as detailed in the pleadings as well as explained by the certified copy of record of rights of village Sutterepada, Taluka and District Dhule as a director of the company.
ii) Directorship of Tvish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Tara Spaces Pvt. Ltd.
iii) Liability of incurring loan from State Bank of India outstanding against the agricultural properties at serial number 1
iv) Trusteeship of Public Educational Tr
