2026 Supreme(Bom) 93

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Kishore C. Sant, J.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Vijay Alias Balasaheb Bhausaheb Thorat - Applicant
Versus
Amol Dhondiba Khatal – Respondent
Application In Election Petition No. 162 Of 2025 (Exhibit-23) In Election Petition No.02 Of 2025
Decided On : 30-03-2026

Election petition alleging specific non-disclosure of partnership firm tax dues in nomination affidavit discloses triable issues under corrupt practice and improper acceptance grounds, warranting trial despite dismissal pleas; read holistically for cause of action.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv), 101(b), 123(2), 81, 83, 86(1) r/w Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - Rule 4A, Form 26 - Election petition alleging corrupt practice by non-disclosure of partnership in firm with professional tax dues shown as government dues 'Nil' in affidavit; improper acceptance of incomplete nomination form; non-compliance with Act provisions - Application for summary dismissal rejected as petition contains specific averments of suppression of material facts prima facie attracting statutory grounds, disclosing triable issues - Mere defence of firm dissolution not to be considered at threshold; nomination scrutiny without objection relevant but not conclusive - Non-disclosure of assets/liabilities of substantial character may materially affect election, but determination case-specific; voters' right to informed decision emphasized - Strict proof required for corrupt practices as quasi-criminal, yet petition not to be dismissed if material facts pleaded within limitation; read as whole without dissection - Amendment for curable defects possible, but not needed here as cause of action disclosed. (Paras 5-9, 63-68)

(B) Pleadings in Election Petitions - Material facts and particulars must be specifically averred with source; vagueness or lack of calculation on vote influence fatal if no cause of action - However, assuming averments true, if triable issue arises from non-disclosure impacting voters, trial warranted - No need to prove material effect for improper nomination acceptance per se under certain grounds, but overall scrutiny required. (Paras 9-10, 22-32, 54)

Facts of the case:
Returned candidate elected in legislative assembly constituency election; defeated candidate filed petition seeking declaration of election void and his own election, alleging suppression of partnership in firm with outstanding professional tax dues (Rs.54,650/-) not disclosed in Form 26 affidavit despite showing income from another unregistered firm and government dues as 'Nil'; nomination improperly accepted; voters unduly influenced. Application by returned candidate for dismissal for no cause of action, incomplete pleadings, limitation defects.

Findings of Court:
Specific averments on website-sourced evidence of firm status as active and dues establish prima facie suppression attracting Section 100(1)(b); Form 26 incomplete warranting trial on improper acceptance under Section 100(1)(d); no case under undue influence at threshold.

Issues: Whether petition discloses complete cause of action with material facts for corrupt practice and election materially affected; sufficiency of pleadings despite no scrutiny objection; curability of presentation defects post-limitation; applicability of summary dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: Election petition to be read holistically; specific pleading of non-disclosure of partnership liabilities and dues raises triable issues under statutory grounds without needing defence evaluation at dismissal stage; technical defects curable, but here substantial averments suffice for trial to ensure purity of elections while protecting against frivolous claims.

Result: Application for summary dismissal dismissed; election petition to proceed to trial.