An election petition may be rejected if it fails to comply with mandatory pleading requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices as per the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) The Applicant, who is the returned candidate in elections to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 154 Magathane-Mumbai Assembly constituency, has filed the present Application seeking rejection of the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) alleging non-compliance with provisions of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.

A. FACTS

2) The elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly were held on 20 November 2024. Petitioner and Respondents contested the election from 154-Magathane Assembly Constituency. The Petitioner was a candidate nominated from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray fraction) political party, whereas Respondent No.1 was a candidate nominated by Shiv Sena political party (Eknath Shinde fraction) and supported by Bhartiya Janata Party.

3) Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 also contested the elections from the said constituency. The results of the election were declared on 23 November 2024. Respondent No.1 polled total number of 1,05,527 votes and was declared elected. Petitioner polled second highest number of votes with total of 47,363 votes. This is how Respondent No.1 is a returned candidate from 154-Magathane Assembly Constituency. Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.1 has committed corrupt practices, as well as violated the provisions of the Constitution of India, Act and the Rules which has materially affected the elections. Petitioner has accordingly filed the present Election Petition seeking a declaration that election of Respondent No. 1 be set aside on grounds enumerated under Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act).

4) After issuance of summons, Respondent No.1 has appeared in the petition and filed his Written Statement. Similarly, Respondent Nos.2 and 4 have also filed their respective Written Statements. The rest of the Respondents, though served, have chosen not to file Written Statements.

5) In addition to filing of Written Statement, Respondent No.1 has filed Application in Election Petition No.3/2025 seeking rejection of the petition under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Petitioner has filed Affidavit-in-Reply opposing the said application. Respondent No.1 has filed Rejoinder dealing with the contents of the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Petitioner. Application No.3/2025 is called out for hearing.

B. SUBMISSIONS

B.1. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/RESPONDENT NO.1-RETURNED CANDIDATE

6) Mr. Bhadbhade, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant/Respondent No.1 submits that the averments in the Election Petition do not make out any of the prescribed grounds for setting aside the election of Respondent No.1. That though Petitioner has invoked provisions of Section 100 (1)(b) and (d)(ii) read with Section 123 of the RP Act, he has failed to set forth full particulars of corrupt practices in the averments raised in the petition. That various allegations raised in the Petition do not connect Respondent No.1 with the said allegations. That the petition is based on bald and vague statements. That the Election Petition thus fails to disclose any cause of action warranting its rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. That the petition is liable to be rejected on account of failure on the part of the Petitioner to serve on to Respondent No.1, Exhibits C-1 to C-4, which form integral part of the Election Petition. That Respondent No.1 is served only with the photograph of pendrive at Exhibit C-1 which cannot be construed as correct and proper service. That tho