Setback for Shinde camp MLA as Bombay High Court to try Thorat's election plea

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) MLA Amol Khatal’s application seeking rejection of an election petition filed by Indian National Congress leader Balasaheb Thorat. The bench of Justice Kishore Sant will now proceed with the trial.

Thorat had challenged Khatal’s election on the ground that he had not disclosed his source of income and tax dues in his election affidavit.

Thorat, who is represented by advocates R. M. Dhorde and Amit Karande, has sought a declaration that the election of returned candidate Amol Dhondiba Khatal from the 217-Sangamner Assembly Constituency, results of which were declared on November 23, 2024, is void under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act. He has also sought a declaration that he be declared duly elected under Section 101(b) of the Act.

As per procedure, Khatal filed an application seeking dismissal of Thorat’s plea. However, with the rejection of this application, the election petition will now be heard on May 7.

A number of election petitions were filed following the parliamentary and assembly elections in Maharashtra. Most were dismissed at this stage after winning candidates sought their rejection.

In his plea, Thorat stated that Khatal was a partner in a firm called Nilkamal. He relied on records available on the GST Department’s website and pointed out that the firm had pending professional tax dues. In spite of this, Khatal allegedly did not disclose his association with the firm. In Form 26, he had declared “Nil” under government dues. Thorat further claimed that the dues amounted to Rs 25,000, with interest of Rs 26,650, taking the total to Rs 54,650.

Khatal, however, argued that he is no longer a partner in the firm and that Nilkamal has been dissolved. The bench observed that this defence cannot be considered at this stage, noting that Thorat had placed on record GST website documents showing the firm’s status as active.

“In such circumstances, merely because the defence is raised that Khatal is not a partner in the firm Nilkamal, it need not be considered at this stage This Court prima facie finds that this clearly attracts the ingredients of Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act,” the court said.

Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act deals with grounds for declaring an election void.

- Ends