Bombay High Court upholds election of Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) MP Ravindra Waikar

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed an election petition filed by Amol Kirtikar, a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) candidate, against Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) Member of Parliament (MP) Ravindra Waikar [Amol Gajanan Kirtikar and ors v. Ravindra Dattaram Waikar and ors]. .In doing so, the Court granted relief to Waikar by allowing his application to dismiss Kirtikar's election petition, citing that the same does not disclose any grounds to declare the elections void."In my view, the Election Petition does not disclose cause of action for making out any of the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or (iv) of the RP Act and therefore Election Petition cannot be taken to trial and is liable to be rejected by having recourse to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code", Justice Sandeep Marne held..Kirtikar had challenged the election and results of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in the 27-Mumbai North-West Parliamentary Constituency, in which Ravindra Waikar was declared as the winning candidate over Kirtikar by a narrow margin of 48 votes.Kirtikar alleged various illegalities during the election process and urged the Court to declare the poll result void under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).Waikar, who won, filed an application seeking the rejection of Kirtikar's election petition, arguing that Kirtikar has only made vague and unsubstantiated claims. .The Court noted that to declare an election as or illegal or void, the election petitioner must show that the poll results were marred by refusal or rejection of any valid vote or the receipt of any void vote or the improper receipt of votes. The Court did not find any such factor in the present case. .Kirtikar, in his petition, had further alleged violations of statutory rules and procedures during the counting process. He claimed that the Returning Officer refusal to allow his counting agents to sit at the counting table and, thereby, violated his rights under Section 64 of the RP Act, as well as other relevant rules and guidelines outlined in official handbooks.The Court, however, noted that Kirtikar had failed to disclose which persons were appointed as his counting agents and at which particular tables or computers they were not permitted to sit. "The allegations are thus clearly vague and do not really disclose a cause of action ... Most importantly, there is no positive statement that non-grant of permission to Petitioner's counting agent at the ARO/RO table has materially affected the result of election of returned candidate," the Court said. .Kirtikar, also raised the issue of non-supply of Form 17-C (Part II) to his counting agents, asserting that this denial prevented them from cross-verifying the final results.Other grounds raised by Kirtikar included the unreasonable rejection of his request for a recount of votes, the unauthorized use of mobile phones in the counting area and the improper receipt of votes cast by impersonators..The Court, however, did not find merit in these arguments. Additionally, it noted that Kirtikar has failed to ensure strict compliance with the requirements of Section 83(1) (a) of the RP Act, which lays down that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies."Petitioner has thoroughly failed to raise necessary pleadings disclosing cause of action, setting aside election of Respondent No.1 under any of the grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the RP Act. The Election Petition lacks concise statement of material facts on which grounds under Section 100(1) (d)(iii) or (iv) of the RP Act are sought to be made out. In absence of necessary pleadings, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code", it said. Thus, the Court dismissed Kirtikar's petition and granted relief to Waikar by allowing his application..Advocates Pradeep M Patil, Parvinchand B Gole and Nimish S Parakh and Amit A Karande appeared for the petitioners, Amol Gajanan Kirtikar and others.Senior Advocate Anil Y Sakhare with Advocates Chirag Shah, Utsav Trivedi, Shyamsunder Jadhav, Kavita Dhanuka, Vishal Acharya, Rohan Mirpurey, Savita Suryavanshi and Bhavya Shah represented Ravindra Dattaram Waikar.Advocates Deepti Thorat, Jayant Gohil, Surindar Mohan Arora, Rohan Satone, Bharat Khimji Shah and Santosh Manik Rayban represented other respondents. .[Read Order]