Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

The Petitioner herein challenges the election of the respondent, who has been declared elected from Constituency No. 276, Kolhapur North during the election of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 15/10/2014. The Petitioner herein had also contested the said election as official candidate on the ticket of Indian Congress Party, whereas the Respondent was contesting the election on the ticket of Shivsena party. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has not disclosed all the offences registered against him at various police stations in which he is charge-sheeted for offences which are punishable for more than two years It is contended that there is suppression of facts That ,he has not complied with the mandate of section 33A(1)(i) and Rule 4A of the representation of People's Act which has caused improper acceptance of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer and therefore his election is liable to be set aside.

2. The ground of challenge would in fact, commence from the very day of the filing of the nomination i.e. 27/9/2014. The respondent herein had filed his affidavit under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 on 25/9/2014. The last date for filing of the nomination was 27/9/2014. The date for scrutiny of the nomination was 29/9/2014. The date of polling was 15/10/2014 and the result/declaration of the polling was on 19.10.2014.

3. The petitioner herein had secured 47315 votes, whereas the respondent was declared elected as he had secured 69736 votes. The second candidate who got majority votes was the petitioner. At that stage, there was no reason for the petitioner to object to the acceptance of the nomination of the respondent, as he had no anticipated that there would be suppression of facts by a person who wanted to get elected from amongst public.

4. The petitioner had learnt from reliable source that some of the offences registered against the respondent have not been disclosed in his affidavit filed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. To verify the genuineness of the said information, the Petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer on 26/11/2014. The petitioner had received the reply on 1/12/2014. Hence, the present petition was filed on 3/12/2014 without loosing any further time in order to file the election petition within the limitation.

5. The petition has been filed on various amongst other ground. The substantial ground being that the respondent has not furnished all the requisite information, which needs to be furnished under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and under the Representation of Peoples Act. According to the petitioner, there has been suppression of facts in as much as the respondent has not mentioned more than 3 cases where chargesheet is filed against the respondent and process is issued for the offences, which are punishable for more than 2 years. The petitioner has stated in paragraph-8 of the petition that upon applying under the Right to Information Act, he had learnt that C.R. No. 46 of 2013 and C.R. No. 15 of 2014 were registered at Juna Rajwada Police Station, as also C.R. Nos. 42 of 2006, 10/2009, 124/2010, 94/2011, 151/2011, 36/2012, 10/2003 and 2/2014 and similarly C.R. Nos. 12/2014, 96/2013, 120/2013, 103/2012, 361/2008 registered at Shahupuri Police Station. It is also stated that there are some criminal cases, which have been mentioned by the respondent in his mandatory affidavit, but without giving proper description of the said criminal cases and without giving details as to which of the cases are punishable for more than two years.

6. After filing the election petition, the petitioner had filed an Application bearing No. 7 of 2016 on 18th March, 2016 seeking amendment to the petition in order to give better particulars and details about the offences not just registered, but in which charge-sheet was filed and proces