The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by Sunil (Bhau) Chandrakant Bhusara of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) challenging the victory of BJP MLA Harishchandra Sakharam Bhoye from the Vikramgad Assembly constituency, holding that the petition failed to disclose material facts necessary to constitute a valid cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petitioner had sought to set aside the election on grounds including alleged defects in Form-26 affidavit, improper acceptance of nomination, undue influence, and ineligibility of the returned candidate on account of employment. The respondent, in turn, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the petition at the threshold.
The Court undertook a structured examination of the three core grounds raised and found each to be legally unsustainable.
On the primary allegation regarding non-reproduction of disclaimer notes in Form-26, the Court held that the format of the affidavit is statutorily prescribed and issued by the Returning Officer. Therefore, any alleged omission in the format could not be attributed to the candidate, nor could it amount to a corrupt practice or materially affect the election outcome.
The Court further found that allegations of undue influence were vague and unsupported by material particulars. It reiterated that mere assertions without specific details such as dates, acts, and persons involved cannot sustain an election challenge.
On the issue of disqualification, the Court held that the respondent had duly obtained permission from the competent authority under the applicable Ashram Shala Sanhita, 2019 to contest the election. The said Sanhita published by the Adivasi Vikas Vibhag of the State of Maharashtra provided that management and teachers, except Class IV employees, temporary teachers and staff may contest Election with prior written permission of the Management.
It also noted suppression of this fact by the petitioner, undermining the credibility of the challenge.
Crucially, the Court emphasised that compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act is mandatory, and an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts with full particulars. The Court underscored the foundational defect in the petition, observing:
“Once there is absence of such concise statement of material facts there can be no cause of action for maintainability of the Election Petition…Petitioner cannot be allowed to improve his case in evidence subsequently by pleading facts not pleaded in the Election Petition.”
The Court held that the election petition was vague and lacked essential pleadings, noting that mere narration of figures without supporting material does not constitute a concise statement of material facts. Finding that no cause of action was disclosed under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, the Court concluded that the petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Appearances
Ms. Neeta P. Karnik, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Jimmy Gonsalves, Mr. Shrirang P. Katneshwarkar, Mr. Anthony Floriyen Foss, Mr. Kallis Albert Alphanso, Advocates for Petitioner in Election Petition No.19 of 2025.
Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w. Ms. Shubhada Khot, Ms. Amita Kuttikrishnan and Ms. Sonal Dabholkar, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Ms. Shweta Shah, Mr. Abhishek Roy, Advocates for Applicant in Application (L) No.24590 of 2025.
