MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) Vinayak Raut against the victory of BJP member of Parliament Narayan Rane.Raut had challenged Rane’s election to the 18th Lok Sabha from the Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg constituency.The Kolhapur bench of the high court said there was non compliance of a legal provision rendering the petition liable for rejection.The high court justice Shailesh Brahme accepted the argument of Rane’s lawyer that “Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of making a concise statement of the “material facts” in the Election Petition.”The high court held that “if the defects are substantial then Election Petition it is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance under Section 81(3) of the Act. I have already observed that the non-compliance of Section 83 is a substantial defect which cannot be cured and the Election Petition is liable to be rejected.”Raut had filed the petition in 2024.Later Rane filed an application seeking its dismissal.Rane’s senior counsel Satish Maneshinde argued that the Election Petition lacks the material facts and particulars in respect of the corrupt practices as is mandated by Section 83(1)(a)(b) of the Act, and it is liable to be rejected.He also submitted that the cause of action has not been made out from the averments and that affidavit subsequently submitted by Raut “is not in conformity with Form No 25 prescribed under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.Maneshinde also submitted that “There is incurable defect in respect of manner of verification of the Election Petition, which is not in consonance with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code’’ and added, “deficiency in the Election Petition cannot be cured by any amendment or subsequently filed affidavits.’’Raut’s counsel Asim Sarode had argued, “The sufficient grounds are made out for corrupt practice and the influence exerted by the respondent no 1 and his supporters. (ii) The pleadings in paragraph no 5(l) need to be examined by considering the newspaper items, video clips and the supportive affidavits. Similarly, the contents of paragraph no 5(m) need to be considered by reading complaint dated 16.05.2024.”“The averments of paragraph no 5(m) are required to be considered by video clip and supportive documents. There is sufficient compliance of Section 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and the application is liable to be rejected. (iii) The petitioner has made out cause of action in the Election Petition, supportive documents and the affidavits. The Election Petition cannot be decided in a summary manner and full fledged trial is required,’’ Sarode added.The high court on hearing both sides, held, “Petitioner has failed to ensure strict compliance with the requirements of statutory provisions. There is non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) (a) of the RP Act.The high court held, “Election Petition must contain a concise statement of material facts to demonstrate the ground of improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void or a concise statement of material fact to demonstrate noncompliance with provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or Rules or orders made thereunder.’’When an election petition doesn’t comply and does not set out facts as required, the petition is bound to be rejected, the high court held.
