RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI vs DURGESH PATHAK

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 788

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA, J
RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI – Appellant
Versus
DURGESH PATHAK – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Ms. Asmita Singh, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, and Ms. Sheenu Priya

Table of Content
1. allegations of fabricated expenses (Para 4)
2. court notes the basis (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. non-compliance does not equate (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. present application allowed (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

I.A. 432/2023 (Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC)

1. The instant Election Petition has been filed under The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“1951 Act”) with a prayer to set aside the election of the respondent no. 1 held in AC-39, Rajinder Nagar, Assembly Constituency, thereby, declaring the said election as null and void. Additionally, the petitioner has also prayed for debarring the respondent no. 1 from contesting Assembly Elections for six years, as per Section 8(A) of the 1951 Act.

2. By way of the present petition, it is alleged that the respondent no. 1 has shown fabricated expenses in the day-to-day expenditure register. The respondent no. 1 has not lodged true accounts of expenditure incurred on refreshment, hoarding, banners, pamphlets, brooms, etc. in his election expenditure register.

3. The present application has been preferred on behalf of the respo