2018:BHC-OS:4632 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ELECTION PETITION NO.7 OF 2014 Balaram Dattatray Patil, Alias Balaram Dattusheth Patil (Balusheth) ...Petitioner vs.

Prashant Ram Thakur ...Respondent .....

Mr. C.G. Gavnekar, a/w. Mr. Suhas Deokar and Mr. A.C. Gavnekar, i/b. Mr.

G.S. Hiranandani, for the Petitioner.

Mr. M.M. Vashi, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. S.B. Shetye, i/b. Mr. S.V.

Gavand, for the Respondent.

.....

CORAM: S.C. GUPTE, J.

DATE : 23 MARCH, 2018.

JUDGEMENT :-

. This Election Petition challenges the election of the Respondent to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.188 – Panvel. The challenge is on the ground of improper acceptance of the Respondent's nomination form by the Returning Officer and corrupt practice, as defined under Section 123 of the Representative of the People Act, committed by the Respondent. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows :-

2. The Petitioner and the Respondent were both candidates for Assembly Constituency No.188 – Panvel for the election to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 15 October 2014. The Petitioner was the official candidate of the Peasants and Workers Party of India, whilst the Respondent was the official candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party. In addition to the Petitioner and the Respondent, there were twelve other candidates, four of whom were from recognised National or State political parties, whilst two were from registered political parties (other than recognised National and State political parties) and six were independent candidates. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the nomination forms for the election submitted by the Respondent were vitiated by several defects of a substantial nature. They inter alia contained a false declaration about the Respondent's assets and were incomplete in material particulars. The nomination forms were accompanied by an affidavit of the Respondent, which also contained wrongful disclosures and suffered from material non- disclosure and incomplete information. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that despite these defects and lapses, the nomination forms were improperly accepted by the Returning Officer within the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and, accordingly, the election of the Respondent was void for non-compliance and/or violation of the orders passed by the election commission under Article 324 of the Constitution of India inter alia on the basis of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is also the grievance of the Petitioner that the Respondent's election is liable to be set aside on account of corrupt practice committed by him through himself or his election agent or by another person with the consent of the Respondent or his election agent, namely, bribery, as defined under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. In particular it is alleged that a vehicle owned by a company controlled by the family of the Respondent, Thakur Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and used for election propaganda at the instance of the Respondent and/or his election agent, was found to contain 500 envelopes containing Rs.500/- each, together with material such as election pamphlets, voters' list, etc. It is submitted that the vehicle was, accordingly, used for the purpose of offering gratification to the voters. It is submitted that an F.I.R. was registered in connection with this incident. Secondly, it is claimed that two employees of the same company, apprehended by the police, were found to be in possession of cash and materials used by the Respondent for offering gratification to the voters of the constituency for voting or refraining from voting at the election held on 15 October 2014. It is submitted that an F.I.R. was registered in this behalf detailing the recovery of cash of Rs.15,500/-, along with the voters' slips of voters residing in Sector 12, Khanda