Relief for Shinde Sena MP as court refuses to declare his election 'null and void'

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Rajan Vichare, who had lost the Lok Sabha election last year to Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) MP Naresh Mhaske from the Thane constituency.

Justice Riyaz Chagla said, "I have rejected the election petition on the ground that it fails to disclose the cause of action. It is suffering from incurable defect and is barred by law."

Vichare's plea, filed through advocate Sanjay Gawde, had sought that Mhaske's election as MP be set aside and declared "null and void". It had also sought a declaration that Vichare be duly elected from Thane.

During the hearing, senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing for Vichare, argued that Mhaske's nomination form falsely declared he had never been convicted, while he had, in fact, been convicted in a rioting case, with his appeal dismissed by the Thane Sessions Court.

"The disclosure in nomination is made so that voters know who they are voting for. This is mandatory disclosure. But he has written 'Not Applicable' in all and so there is suppression of fact," Khambata submitted.

Mhaske had secured 7,34,231 votes, defeating Vichare by a margin of 2,17,011 votes, while Vichare polled 5,17,220 votes. The remaining candidates received votes only in the few thousands.

Khambata further told the court that Vichare had met all compliance required for the petition, including filing it within 45 days of the result and depositing ?2,000 in court.

He stressed that the law requires such petitions to be heard within six months, and since the matter involved a short point with documentary evidence, the trial could have been concluded quickly.

"The nomination form cannot be denied and if Mhaske denies his conviction then it will be extraordinary. So it is a short point of law that has to be decided," he argued.

Senior advocate Vikram Nankani, appearing for Mhaske, refuted the allegations and cited various Supreme Court judgments during the hearing.

The detailed judgment with reasoning is yet to be made available.

- Ends