Election petitions alleging affidavit suppression must plead full corrupt practice particulars including pendency and material election result effect for improper acceptance; deficiency invites Order VII Rule 11 dismissal for no cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

1. The present Application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “CPC”] seeking dismissal of Election Petition is at the instance of the returned candidate, whose election is called in question by the present Election Petition.

2. By the Election Petition, the Election of the returned candidate from Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Constituency No 145, Mira Bhayander Constituency declared on 23^rd November, 2024 is questioned under Section 36(2), Section 100(1)(b), (1)(d)(i) and (1)(d)(iv) of The Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short “R.P. Act”). The allegation in Election Petition is that there is improper acceptance of the Applicant’s nomination as there is suppression of criminal cases pending against the Applicant, the pendency of government dues, non disclosure of details of assets in the Affidavit filed under Rule 4A of the The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short “Rules of 1961”) which constitutes corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of R.P. Act.

3. The Application is contested by the Election Petitioner contending that non disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidate in entirety and in full detail amounts to corrupt practice of undue influence. There is suppression of criminal offences and non disclosure of description of offences against the Applicant in the Affidavit filed under Rule 4A of Rules of 1961.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the election petition has been filed on allegation of non-disclosure of FIRs and details of the Applicant’s shares. He submits that Section 33A of the RP Act mandates disclosure of criminal offences in which charge has been framed by a court of competent jurisdiction or where there is conviction. He further submits that in so far as FIR No. 44 of 2020 is concerned, A-summary report has been filed; and insofar as CR No. 387 of 2022 is concerned, no cognizance has been taken and no charge has been framed.

5. He submits that the Petition alleges non-disclosure of the offences in their entirety and in full detail, claiming the same to be a corrupt practice. He would submit that in so far as incorrect number of FIR No 112 of 2002 is concerned, he points out the Affidavit which sets out the correct FIR number. He submits that, for suppression to constitute a cause of action, there has to be a pleading that cognizance has been taken, which is missing in the present case. He would further submit that, insofar as CR No. 433 of 2023 is concerned, it is alleged that no details have been furnished; however, he points out that the said FIR has been disclosed in the affidavit.

6. He would further submit that, insofar as the Government dues are concerned, the Petition itself pleads in paragraph 14 that the response to the RTI application is that there are no such dues pending. He submits that there are complete details given of the shares owned by the Applicant and points out the details set-out in the affidavit as regards the shares of Seven-Eleven Construction Private Limited and Seven-Eleven Hotels Private Limited. He submits that the concise statement of facts annexed to the petit