Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., dismissed an election petition filed by Ganesh Kumar Yadav (the petitioner) challenging the validity of Captain R. Tamil Selvan’s (the respondent) election from the 179 Sion—Koliwada Constituency, held on 20-11-2024. The election was challenged on the ground of it being void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People’s Act 1951 (‘RP Act’), and directions were sought under Section 125A of the RP Act. Consequently, an application was filed by Respondent for dismissal under Section 86 of the RP Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC’).
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the present Election Petition did not disclose any cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 83 of the RP Act and was liable to be rejected without trial. The Court emphasised that once Respondent’s nomination was held valid, it was deemed accepted under Section 33 of the RP Act and could only be rejected during scrutiny under Section 36(2) of the said Act.
Background:
In the 2024 General Elections for the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 15 candidates contested from 179 Sion—Koliwada Constituency, including Ganesh Yadav (Indian National Congress) and Captain Selvan (Bhartiya Janata Party). Voting was held on 20-11-2024, followed by vote counting on 23-11-2024. Ganesh Yadav secured 65,534 votes (second highest), and Captain Selvan with 73,429 votes was declared the Returned Candidate.
Ganesh Yadav filed the Election Petition challenging Captain Selvan’s election on three grounds: (i) non-disclosure and omission of an immovable asset acquired through a housing loan worth Rs 90 Lakh, (ii) non-disclosure of an Arbitration Award of Rs 2.72 Crore passed against him and in favour of Central Railways and (iii) non-disclosure of liabilities.
Captain Selvan submitted that Election Petition was liable to be rejected as it did not contain a concise statement of material facts under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. He alleged that it did not disclose any cause of action and that the Petitioner had to specifically plead non-compliance with the Constitution, RP Act, Rules or Orders. It was further contended that the Petition was full of vague allegations, based on presumptions and assumptions without cogent or documentary evidence.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the Election Petition comprised of vague and generic pleadings. There was complete absence of material facts. If Petition had to be maintained under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) or Section 101 of the RP Act, then entire cause of action in the form of specific material facts along with full disclosure of names, dates, place, incidents, role etc. needed to be stated specifically.
The Court observed absolute non-compliance of Section 83 of the RP Act, which mandated that an Election Petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged. The Court pointed out that Ganesh Yadav had merely alleged general and vague violations without specifying details. No concise statement of material facts alleging violation under Section 83 of the RP Act was stated, and grounds were not in consonance with the violation alleged under Section 83 read with Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. The Court highlighted that the Petition must demonstrate non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution, the Act, Rules, or Orders made thereunder.
The Court emphasised that for invoking Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, Ganesh Yadav had to plead that the election result was materially affected by non-compliance by furnishing entire details. It was not open to him to argue that some details were placed on record and the rest would be proved by evidence. The Court observed that concise material facts meant all relevant details calling an election, so Ganesh Yadav could not improve his case by pleading facts not stated in the Election Petition. It was further noted that Ganesh Yadav had opposed the Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application, arguing he should be given an opportunity to produce evidence at trial.
The Court further noted that while disclosure was mandatory, non-disclosure or partial disclosure constituted an irregularity attracting Section 125A of the RP Act. It could not be a ground for setting aside election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). Alleged omissions did not amount to non-compliance with Section 33 of the RP Act or Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Such omissions did not constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act.
The Court observed that Ganesh Yadav alleged Captain Selvan failed to disclose liabilities, including an Arbitration Award of Rs 2.72 Crore in favour of Central Railway, however, Ganesh Yadav himself pleaded that the Award was stayed by this Court on 11-03-2020 and since the liability was not crystallised and pending adjudication, its disclosure was not required. The Court further noted that the Flat was acquired by Captain Selvan’s daughter through Rs 90 Lakh housing loan and adequate disclosure of liabilities of Rs 51.97 Lakh were shown, hence Ganesh Yadav’s objection was not sustainable.
The Court emphasised that the Returning Officer found no ambiguity, mistake, non-disclosure, or suppression and once Captain Selvan’s nomination was held valid under Section 33 of the RP Act, it could only be rejected at scrutiny under Section 36(2) of the RP Act. Once scrutiny was held by the Returning Officer and each nomination paper endorsed, the list of validly nominated candidates was prepared as per Sections 30, 33, and 34 of the RP Act. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by Ganesh Yadav regarding suppression and non-disclosure.
The Court held that, due to absence of specific and necessary pleadings and reliance on findings and citations, the Election Petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-compliance with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. The Court found no cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 83 of the RP Act, and concluded that the Petition could not be taken to trial.
Accordingly, the Application was allowed and the Election Petition was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
[Ganesh Kumar Yadav v. Captain R. Tamil Selvan, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2929, decided on 18-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Premlal Krishnan a/w. Nadeem Sharma, Hrishikesh Nadkarni, Kailash Tiwari, Salman Atharia and Abuzar Khan, Advocates i/by Pan India Legal Services LLP.
For the Respondents: Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Mandar Soman and Shailesh Shukla, Advocates i/by Shailesh H. Shukla & H. Vaidyanathan Associates.
