SULAKSHANA RAJU DHAR Vs. ANNA DADU BANSODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by respondent no.1, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC'), for rejection of the election petition. The election petition is filed to challenge the election of the applicant as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 206 (PimpriS.C.) Assembly Constituency in the election held on 20/11/2024. The applicant was declared elected on 23/11/2024. The petitioner had also contested the said election and secured the second-highest votes. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

(2.) The applicant, i.e., the successful candidate, has raised an objection that no meaningful cause of action is pleaded in the election petition. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the relevant averments in the petition to support his submissions that the petition is filed on vague allegations. In paragraph 6 of the petition, the petitioner has raised objections to the information regarding the applicant's assets, as stated in Form 26, alleging that a false affidavit was filed. Copies of the 7/12 extracts are attached to the petition to allege that the applicant has concealed that he jointly owned agricultural land bearing Gat No. 1593, where his and his family members' names appear in the 7/12 extract as shareholders of the society that owns the land. It is further alleged that when the applicant contested the election to the said constituency in the years 2009, 2014, and 2019, the liability of his spouse is seen from past affidavits. However, in the affidavit filed at the time of the present election, the applicant had made a false statement on oath, as the liability shown in the earlier affidavits is not explained. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the existing liability of the applicant's spouse is not alleged, and the earlier forms are not annexed to the petition. Hence, there cannot be a fishing inquiry in the election petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant points out the allegations made in paragraphs 27 to 31 of the petition and submits that the allegations are vague and would not constitute any of the grounds for setting aside the applicant's election. The verification clause in the election petition is not as per the prescribed format contemplated under Sec. 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('of the 1951 Act'), read with Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC. Considering the nature of the allegations in the petition, the petitioner was under an obligation to specify the paragraph number of the petition separately, stating which paragraphs are based on personal knowledge and which on information. The petitioner was also under an obligation to disclose the source of personal knowledge. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, all the allegations made in the petition cannot be based on personal knowledge, and thus, it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose the source of knowledge.