Bombay High Court

NAYANA MANOJ VASANIversusNARENDRA LALCHAND MEHTA

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SHARMILA U DESHMUKH

Holding

The election petition is dismissed for lack of a cause of action and non‑compliance with the pleading requirements of the RP Act and CPC.

Summary

The High Court considered an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the returned candidate, Narendra L. Mehta, seeking dismissal of an election petition filed by Nayana M. Vasani. The petition alleged that Mehta had suppressed pending criminal cases, government dues, and details of shareholdings in the affidavit filed with his nomination, thereby constituting corrupt practice under Section 123(2) and improper acceptance of nomination under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court examined the statutory requirements of Sections 33, 33A, 81, 83 and 100 of the RP Act, Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, and the need for a concise statement of material facts. Relying on precedents, the Court held that the petition failed to disclose a cause of action, did not provide full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, and did not show how the alleged non‑disclosure materially affected the election result. Consequently, the petition was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the CPC. The application for dismissal was allowed.

Issues considered

The election petition must disclose a cause of action under Section 100 of the RP Act.
Whether the alleged non‑disclosure of pending criminal cases and assets amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(2).
Whether the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination form under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) materially affected the election result.
Whether the petition complies with the pleading requirements of Section 83 of the RP Act and Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — s. Rule 4A
Representation of People Act, 1951 — s. 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv), 123(2), 33, 33A, 36(2), 81, 83

Subjects

election petition
non‑disclosure
criminal cases
corrupt practice
undue influence
Section 100
Section 33A
Order VII Rule 11
cause of action
improper acceptance of nomination

Judgment

Digitally signed
by SHAGUFTA
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
QUTBUDDIN PATHAN
PATHAN Date: AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc
2026.03.24
17:14:48 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2025
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2025

Narendra Lalachan Mehta
Age - 52 years, Occupation - Business
Residing at D/6, Shagun Bunglow,
Old Golden Nest, Phase -3, Near Blue
...Applicant
Moon Club, Mira Bhayandar Road,
Mira Road East, Thane - 401107 (Original
Respondent)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Nayana Manoj Vasani
Age - 56 years, Occupation - Doctor
Residing at 02, Mithun Building, Srishti Complex,
Near Bhakti Vedant Hospital, Sector No. 2,
Mira Bhayander, Thane Maharashtra - 401107
...Petitioner

Versus
Narendra Lalachan Mehta
Age - 52 years, Occupation - Business
Residing at D/6, Shagun Bunglow,
Old Golden Nest, Phase -3, Near Blue Moon Club,
Mira Bhayandar Road,
Mira Road East, Thane – 401107 … Respondent

WITH
ELECTION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2025

Nayana Manoj Vasani
Age - 56 years, Occupation - Doctor
Residing at 02, Mithun Building, Srishti Complex,
Near Bhakti Vedant Hospital, Sector No. 2,
Mira Bhayander, Thane Maharashtra - 401107
...Petitioner

SQ Pathan 1/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

——————
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Sarvesh Dixit, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Mr. Mahesh
Patil and Mr. Ravindra Jadhav i/b Mr. Ritesh Tiwari for the Applicant/
Original Respondent

Mr. Balkrishna Joshi a/w Mr. Virendra Pethe and Mr. Dilip H. Shukla for
the Respondent / Original Petitioner
——————

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 18, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 24, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “CPC”] seeking dismissal of

Election Petition is at the instance of the returned candidate, whose

election is called in question by the present Election Petition.

2. By the Election Petition, the Election of the returned candidate

from Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Constituency No 145, Mira

Bhayander Constituency declared on 23rd November, 2024 is

questioned under Section 36(2), Section 100(1)(b), Section 100(1)(d)(i)

SQ Pathan 2/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of The Representation of People Act, 1951

(for short “R.P. Act”). The allegation in Election Petition is that there is

improper acceptance of the Applicant’s nomination as there is

suppression of criminal cases pending against the Applicant, the

pendency of government dues, non disclosure of details of assets in

the AHdavit Iled under Rule 4A of the The Conduct of Election Rules,

1961 (for short “Rules of 1961”) which constitutes corrupt practice

under Section 123(2) of R.P. Act.

3. The Application is contested by the Election Petitioner

contending that non disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidate in

entirety and in full detail amounts to corrupt practice of undue

inJuence. There is suppression of criminal oKences and non disclosure

of description of oKences against the Applicant in the AHdavit Iled

under Rule 4A of Rules of 1961.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits

that the election petition has been Iled on allegation of non-disclosure

of FIRs and details of the Applicant’s shares. He submits that Section

33A of the RP Act mandates disclosure of criminal oKences in which

charge has been framed by a court of competent jurisdiction or where

there is conviction. He further submits that in so far as FIR No. 44 of

2020 is concerned, A-summary report has been Iled; and insofar as CR

SQ Pathan 3/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

No. 387 of 2022 is concerned, no cognizance has been taken and no

charge has been framed.

5. He submits that the Petition alleges non-disclosure of the

oKences in their entirety and in full detail, claiming the same to be a

corrupt practice. He would submit that in so far as incorrect number of

FIR No 112 of 2002 is concerned, he points out the AHdavit which sets

out the correct FIR number. He submits that, for suppression to

constitute a cause of action, there has to be a pleading that cognizance

has been taken, which is missing in the present case. He would further

submit that, insofar as CR No. 433 of 2023 is concerned, it is alleged

that no details have been furnished; however, he points out that the

said FIR has been disclosed in the aHdavit.

6. He would further submit that, insofar as the Government dues

are concerned, the Petition itself pleads in paragraph 14 that the

response to the RTI application is that there are no such dues pending.

He submits that there are complete details given of the shares owned

by the Applicant and points out the details set-out in the aHdavit as

regards the shares of Seven-Eleven Construction Private Limited and

Seven-Eleven Hotels Private Limited. He submits that the concise

statement of facts annexed to the petition is not in accordance with

law. In support, he relies upon the following decisions:

SQ Pathan 4/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

(i) Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors.1;

(ii) Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari 2;

(iii) Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi & Ors. 3;

(iv) Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. Santhana Kumar & Ors. 4;

(v) Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. 5;

(vi) Rajendra Dhedya Gavit vs. Sudhir Brijendra Jain 6;

(vii)Anil Yashwant Desai vs. Mahendra Tulshiram

Bhingardive7;

(viii)Sangram Sampatrao Deshmukh vs. Election

Commissioner of India & Ors.8;

(ix) Satyajeet @ Nana Shivajirao Kadam vs. Rajesh Vinayak

Kshirsagar9;

(x) Satish Mahadeorao Uke vs. Devendra Gangadhar

Fadnavis10; and

(xi) B. G. Uday vs. H. G. Prashanth11

1 (1982) 1 SCC 691
2 (2012) 3 SCC 314
3 (1990) 2 SCC 173
4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 573
5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509
6 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2447
7 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3303
8 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 8
9 EP/23/2024 decided on 19.03.2019
10 2016 (2) Mh.L.J. 613
11 CRL.RP.No.1157 of 2023 (397-ER) dated 24.04.2024

SQ Pathan 5/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

7. Per contra, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent submits that the AHdavit Iled by the Applicant

suppresses the criminal oKences against the Applicant. He submits

that it is the duty of the Respondent to point out the suppression, and

it is for the Applicant to furnish the necessary details. He submits that,

in respect of FIR No. 387 of 2022, it is stated that A-Summary report

has been sent and the AHdavit suppresses that A-summary report was

recalled. He submits that the AHdavit to be Iled is required to give

complete information and by suppressing the fact that A-summary has

been recalled, wrong information has been given which has a tendency

to mislead the voters. He would further submit that there are no

details given of FIR No. 433 of 2023. He submits that the suppression

of the source of income constitutes a corrupt practice of undue

inJuence. He would further submit that, insofar as the police dues are

concerned, it is not for the Respondent to give details in the petition,

and the Applicant has not given any information in the AHdavit about

the police dues. In support, he relies upon the following decisions:

(i) Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar & Ors.12;
(ii) Lok Prahari Through its General Secretary S. N. Shukla
vs. Union of India & Ors.13; and
(iii) Arjunadada Dashrath Bhuse vs. Dadaji Dagadu Bhuse 14

12 (2015) 2 SCC 467
13 (2018) 4 SCC 699 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri.) 590
14 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 873

SQ Pathan 6/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

REASONS & ANALYSIS:

8. For the purpose of adjudicating an application under Order 7

Rule 11 of CPC, it is only the averments in the plaint which are germane

and extraneous material cannot be considered. The application seeks

dismissal of the Petition on the ground of non disclosure of cause of

action and as being barred by law. It is trite that cause of action

constitutes the bundle of facts, which would be necessary for PlaintiK

to prove, if traversed, to be entitled to the relief claimed.

9. Under the statutory provisions of R.P. Act, an election can be

questioned only on the grounds set out in Section 100 of the R.P. Act.

Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(d)(i) provides for declaring the

election void where any corrupt practice has been committed by the

returned candidate and where the result of the election, insofar as it

concerns a returned candidate, has been materially aKected by

improper acceptance of nomination, respectively. As the election of a

democratically elected person is sought to be questioned, it will be

relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (supra), in paragraph 8, which reads

thus:

“8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is,
anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a
Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So
is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an

SQ Pathan 7/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right
to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory
creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory
limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Common
Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which
neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply
but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is
a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to
be exercised in accordance with the statutory creating it.
Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain
strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A
Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of
alleged policy because policy in such matters as those,
relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute
lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a
straight jacket. Thus the entire election process commencing
from the issuance of the notiIcation calling upon a
constituency to elect a member or members right up to the
Inal resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election
is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
diKerent stages of the process being dealt with by diKerent
provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament
or the State Legislature except as provided by the
Representation of the People Act 1951 and again, no such
election may be questioned except in the manner provided by
the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation
of the People Act has been held to be a complete and self
contained code within which must be found any rights
claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. …….”

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in categorical terms held that out of

the statute, there is no right to elect, no right to get elected and no

right to dispute the election. The challenge to election thus requires

strict compliance with the statutory provisions.

11. As the allegation in the present case is concentrated on the non

disclosure/incomplete information furnished by the Applicant in the

prescribed Form 26, it would apposite to have a look at the relevant

statutory provisions governing the disclosure of information. Section

33 provides for the presentation of nomination papers and the

SQ Pathan 8/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

requirements for a valid nomination. The procedure prescribed under

Section 33 is that, on the presentation of the nomination paper, the

Returning OHcer is required to satisfy himself that the name and

electoral roll number of the candidate and his proposer, as entered in

the nomination form, are the same as those entered in the electoral

roll and Section 33A provides that a candidate, apart from the

information which is required to be furnished under the Act or the

Rules, shall also furnish information as to:

(a) whether he is accused of any oKence punishable with

imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a

charge has been framed by a court of competent jurisdiction: and

(b) whether he has been convicted of an oKence, other than an oKence

referred to in Section 8(1), 8(2), or 8(3), and sentenced to

imprisonment for one year or more.

12. Under sub-section (2) of Section 33A, the candidate is required to

deliver to the Returning OHcer the nomination paper along with an

aHdavit sworn by the candidate in the prescribed form verifying the

information speciIed in sub-section (1) of Section 33A. Rule 4A of the

Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 provides for the aHdavit to be

furnished in Form 26. Form 26 prescribes the various details to be

disclosed and, insofar as the pending criminal cases are concerned, the

same is prescribed in Clause 5 of Form 26. The information about

SQ Pathan 9/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

pending criminal cases is required to be submitted in tabular format

setting out various particulars, such as FIR number with the name and

address of the police station, the case number with the name of the

court, the concerned sections of the relevant Act, a brief description of

the oKence, whether charges have been framed and, if the answer is

yes, the date on which the charges were framed, and whether any

application for revision has been Iled in the proceedings.

13. A conjoint reading of Section 33A with Rule 4A and prescribed

Form No. 26 leaves no manner of doubt that the candidate is required

to furnish details of all pending criminal cases. The disclosure is not

restricted to the criminal cases in which charge has been framed or

there is conviction. Item (e) of Form 26 requiring disclosure of

information as to whether charge has been framed or not is an

indicator that all pending criminal cases are required to be disclosed.

The purpose behind furnishing information of all pending criminal

cases irrespective of whether the charges have been framed or not, in

the prescribed Form 26 to ensure that the voters take a well informed

decision.

14. With this statutory background, the pleadings in the Petition will

have to be perused to ascertain whether the same discloses a cause of

action or is barred by law. The pleading in paragraph 5 of the Petition

is that the election is challenged on the ground of improper

SQ Pathan 10/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

acceptance of nomination form by the Returning OHcer and due to

non compliance with provisions of Constitution of India, R.P. Act as well

as Rules and orders framed under the Act, which would be a challenge

under Section 100 (1)(d)(i) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act.

15. The substratum of the Petitioner’s case is set out in paragraph 8

of the Petition which is reproduced herein-below:

“8. The Petitioner submits that in the aHdavit Iled along with the

nomination form, the Respondent has not declared full and correct

information in respect of criminal cases pending against the

Respondent and as a matter of fact, the Respondent has also

suppressed detail information and/or description of Criminal Cases

pending against him from the Mandatory aHdavit Iled along with

the nomination papers. The Petitioner further submits that the

Respondent has also suppressed the dues pending to the

Government. The Respondent has also failed to give details of share

i.e. number of shares and price of each share headed by the

respondent and his spouse. The Petitioner states that though

categorical objections were taken by one of the contesting

candidate the same was ignored/rejected by the Returning OHcer

on the Jimsy grounds. The Returning OHcer accepted

Respondent’s incomplete aHdavit without raising objection. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent failed to give short

description of the oKences, sections of the Act. The true copy of the

objection taken by one of the candidate is annexed hereto and

marked as Exhibit C. The true copy of the reply given by the

SQ Pathan 11/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

Respondent to the said objection is annexed hereto and marked as

Exhibit D. The true copy of the order passed by the Returning

OHcer, accepting nomination form of the Respondent is annexed

hereto and marked Exhibit E. The true and correct English

translation of Exhibit E the order passed by the Returning OHcer is

annexed here too and marked Exhibit E-1.”

16. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Petition pleads as under:

“20. The petitioner therefore states that the election of the
Respondent, from the Maharashtra legislative Assembly No.145

Mira Bhayander- Assembly Constituency is liable to be declared as

null and void on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination

paper on account of invalid aHdavit which aHdavit is necessarily

integral part of the nomination paper and is liable to be quashed

and set aside and therefore the election of the respondent be

quashed and set aside in view of provisions of Section 100(1) (d)(i)

and 100(1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act.

21. The Petitioner also submits that the Election of the Respondent,

from the Maharashtra legislative Assembly constituency No.145

Mira Bhayander- Assembly Constituency is liable to be declared null

and void since the Respondent and his agents have committed

corrupt practice as per Section 123(2) of R.P. Act and therefore the

election of the Respondent be quashed and set aside in view of the

provisions of Representation of peoples Act, 1951.”

17. Upon meaningful reading of the Petition, the grounds on which

election is questioned are :

SQ Pathan 12/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

Suppression of :

(i) FIR No 44 of 2020 and FIR No 181 of 2022

(ii) pending police dues.

Furnishing of incorrect/ incomplete information of:

(i) details of FIR No 433 of 2023

(ii) details of CR No 387 of 2022 as A- Summary report stated to

have been sent has been recalled.

(iii) FIR No 112 of 2002 in so far as year of FIR is concerned

(iv) details and price of shares as total cost of shares is only

stated in the AHdavit.

18. The AHdavit Iled by the Applicant gives details of the criminal

cases pending against the Applicant as under:

(A) Navghar Police Station – FIR No. 117 of 2013/Magistrate Court,

Thane 6822/2015, FIR No. 265 of 2014/Magistrate Court Thane

7133/2016, and FIR No. 387 of 2022/ A Final report sent.

(B) Mira Road Police Station – FIR No. 112 of 2002/Sessions Court

Thane 11/2004 , FIR No. 255 of 2013, FIR No. 345 of 2021, and FIR

No. 107 of 2019.

( C) Kashimira Police Station – RCC No. 1022 of 2017, RCC No. 1023

of 2017, FIR No. 19 of 2011, RCC No. 1671 of 2017, FIR No. 723 of

2021, and FIR No. 529 of 2021/Special Court Thane S R 12/22.

SQ Pathan 13/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

(D) Bhayandar Police Station – FIR No. 83 of 2017/Magistrate

Court Thane 4321/2018, FIR No. 145 of 2019, FIR No. 552 of 2020,

and FIR No. 433 of 2023, and

(E) Naya Nagar Police Station – FIR No. 23 of 2017.

19. The AHdavit in the column of “Brief description of oKence”

gives the status of the pending criminal cases such as Court pending, A

Summary report sent etc instead of giving the description of the

oKence with which charged. The pleading in paragraph10 of the

Petition is that the suppression of FIR’s and non disclosure of the

oKences in entirety and in full detail would amount to corrupt practice

of undue inJuence and the pleading in paragraph 13 is that the same

would also result in rejection of nomination form as defect of

substantial character.

20. Section 83 of R.P. Act deals with ‘Contents of Election Petition’,

and reads thus:-

“83. Contents of petition.—
(1) An election petition—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that
the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as
possible of the names of the parties alleged to have
committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of
the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and veriIed in the manner
laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
for the veriIcation of pleadings:

SQ Pathan 14/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an aHdavit
in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such
corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be
signed by the petitioner and veriIed in the same manner as
the petition.”

21. Section 83 provides for the Election Petition to contain a concise

statement of material facts and higher threshold is required to be met

where the challenge is on the ground of corrupt practice. In case of

allegation of corrupt practice, sub-section (2) of Section 83 mandates

giving of full particulars of the corrupt practice including the names of

the person, date and place of commission of each such practice. The

relevant sub-section(2) of Section 123 of R.P. Act, 1951 dealing with

the acts deemed to constitute corrupt practice, reads thus:

“123. Corrupt practices.—The following shall be deemed to
be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:—

(2) Undue inJuence, that is to say, any direct or indirect
interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the
candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the
consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free
exercise of any electoral right:

Provided that—
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of
this clause any such person as is referred to therein who —

(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in
whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of
any kind including social ostracism and ex- communication or
expulsion from any caste or community; or

(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an
elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is
interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine
displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere

SQ Pathan 15/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

with the free exercise of the electoral right of such
candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause;

(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public
action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent
to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be
interference within the meaning of this clause.”

22. The allegation of providing incomplete information in the

AHdavit by leaving out description of criminal oKences is an allegation

founded on defect in the nomination and constitutes the ground of

improper acceptance of the nomination form under Section 100(1)(d)(i)

of R.P. Act. In contradiction, allegation of suppression of criminal cases

by the candidate would constitute corrupt practice of undue inJuence

under Section 123(2) and constitute ground under Section100(1)(b) of

R.P. Act. In the decision of Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar & Others

(supra), the question posed before the Hon’ble Apex Court was

whether a candidate who does not disclose the criminal cases in

respect of heinous or serious oKences or moral turpitude or corruption

pending against him would amount to undue inJuence and as a fallout

to corrupt practice. In that case, the returned candidate had Iled

declaration and aHdavit only mentioning Crime No 10 of 2001,

whereas the Election Petition pleaded that during investigation of

Crime No 10 of 2001, the police placed eight diKerent charge sheets of

which cognizance was taken. The returned candidate failed to mention

the details of the charge sheets Iled against him which were pending

SQ Pathan 16/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

trial. In the backdrop of this factual scenario, the Hon’ble Apex Court

answered the question posed and summarised its Indings in paragraph

94 as under:

“94. In view of the above, we would like to sum up our
conclusions:

94.1. Disclosure of criminal antecedents of a candidate, especially

pertaining to he heinous or serious oKence, or oKences relating

to corruption, or moral turpitude at the time of Iling of

nomination paper, as mandated by law is a categorical imperative.

94.2. When there is non-disclosure of the oKences pertaining to

the areas mentioned in the preceding clause, it creates an

impediment in the free exercise of electoral right.

94.3. Concealment or suppression of this nature deprives the

voters to make an informed and advised choice as a consequence

of which it would come within the compartment of direct or

indirect interference, or attempt to interfere with the free

exercise of the right to vote by the electorate, on the part of the

candidate.

94.4. As the candidate has the special knowledge of the pending

cases where cognizance has been taken, or charges have been

framed, and there is non-disclosure on his part, it would amount

to undue inJuence and therefore, the election is to be declared

null and void by the Election Tribunal under Section 100(1)(b) of

1951 Act.

SQ Pathan 17/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

94.5. The question whether it materially aKect the election or not

will not arise in the case of this nature.”

23. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the decision of Resurgence

India vs Election Commission of India 15 which explained the rationale

behind the opinion expressed in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs

Union of India16, which had opined, that the direction to reject the

nomination paper for furnishing wrong information or concealing

material information and providing for a summary inquiry at the time

of scrutiny of the nominations cannot be justiIed and the Returning

OHcer could reject a nomination paper on account of Iling the

aHdavit with particulars left blank. The Hon’ble Apex Court clariIed in

paragraph 79 that the controversy involved in Krishnamoorthy (supra)

was pertaining to non disclosure of information while Iling of AHdavit

pertaining to criminal cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held non

disclosure of criminal cases as constituting corrupt practice of undue

inJuence.

24. In the present case, the election is questioned on two limbs: (a)

suppression of criminal cases and (b) furnishing of incomplete

information in the AHdavit. The allegation of suppression of criminal

cases under Section 100(1)(b), would require satisfaction of Section

15(2014) 14 SCC 189
16 (2003) 4 SCC 399

SQ Pathan 18/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

83(1)(b) of furnishing full particulars of the corrupt practice. Whereas

furnishing of incomplete information in the AHdavit is relatable to non

compliance of Section 33/Section 33A of R.P. Act read with Rule 4A of

Rules of 1961 which would tantamount to improper acceptance of

nomination within the meaning of Section 100 (1)(d) (I) and Section 100

(1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act requiring pleading of material facts to show that by

reason of improper acceptance of nomination form, the result of the

election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, was materially

aKected.

25. The pleading of suppression is in respect of two FIR’s No 44 of

2020 and FIR No 181 of 2022. In so far as FIR No 44 of 2020 is

concerned, the Petition pleads about the registration of the crime and

withdrawal of the quashing Petition by the Applicant. The Petition

however falls short of the speciIc pleading in order to constitute cause

of action for corrupt practice. Section 83(1)(b) demands furnishing of

full particulars of corrupt practice. As to what would constitute

material facts in case of corrupt practice would depend on facts of

each case and in present case considering that Form 26 prescribed

furnishing of details of pending criminal cases, it was necessary to

plead about the status of the two FIR’s and to produce material to

demonstrate the pendency of the two FIR’s on the date of Iling of

AHdavit. The Petition does not even contain a bare assertion that the

SQ Pathan 19/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

two FIR’s are pending against the Applicant leave aside setting out the

status of the FIR’s to show pendency.

26. The allegation about incorrect number of FIR No 112 of 2002

being given, can be quickly discharged as the AHdavit which was Iled

in Marathi language contains the correct FIR year and the discrepancy

is in the english translation provided by the Petitioner.

27. The allegations about incomplete information about C.R. No 387

of 2022, suppression of details of C.R No 433 of 2023, suppression of

pending security dues, details of shares, and blank left in the AHdavit

respect of one of the immovable property constitute ground under

Section 100(d)(i) of R.P. Act. The Petition in such case must plead the

necessary facts to show as to how the result of election has been

materially aKected by the improper acceptance of the nomination. The

only pleading in that respect can be found in paragraph 16, which

contains a bald assertion as under:

“16) The Petitioner states that by such improper acceptance of the
nomination Form of the respondent, the result of the election has been

materially aKected…”

28. In Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haq Laskar (supra), the

Apex Court has held in Paragraph Nos.13, 14 , 22, 24 as under:-

“13. It hardly needs to be reiterated that in an Election
Petition, pleadings have to be precise, speciIc and
unambiguous, and if the Election Petition does not disclose a
cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It may also

SQ Pathan 20/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

be noted that the cause of action in questioning the validity of
election must relate to the grounds speciIed in Section 100 of
the RP Act. As held in Bhagwati Prasad Dixit ‘Ghorewala’ vs.
Rajeev Gandhi and in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Rajiv
Gandhi, if the allegations contained in the petition do not set
out the grounds as contemplated by Section 100 and do not
conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act,
the pleadings are liable to be struck oK and the Election
Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.

14. A beneIcial reference of the decision in case of Laxmi
Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others be also
made, wherein this Court upon review of the earlier decisions,
laid down following principles applicable to election cases
involving corrupt practices:-

“5. This Court in a catena of decisions has laid down the
principles as to the nature of pleadings in election cases,
the sum and substance of which being:

(1) The pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition
should be absolutely precise and clear containing all
necessary details and particulars as required by law vide
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987
Supp SCC 93] and Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri
Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] .
(2) The allegations in the election petition should not be
vague, general in nature or lacking of materials or
frivolous or vexatious because the court is empowered at
any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete
pleadings which are suKering from such vices as not
raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh v. Surinder
Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 599: (1974) 1 SCR 52], Kona
Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] and
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987
Supp SCC 93].
(3) The evidence adduced in support of the pleadings
should be of such nature leading to an irresistible
conclusion or unimpeachable result that the allegations
made, have been committed rendering the election void
under Section 100 vide Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya v.
Lachhi Ram [(1954) 2 SCC 306: (1955) 1 SCR 608 : AIR
1954 SC 686] and Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [(1974)
2 SCC 660].
(4) The evidence produced before the court in support of
the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory,
credible and positive and also should stand the test of
strict and scrupulous scrutiny vide Ram Sharan Yadav v.
Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh [(1984) 4 SCC 649] .
(5) It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at
its face value without looking for assurances for some

SQ Pathan 21/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents vide
Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [(1974) 2 SCC 660],
M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy [(1977) 1 SCC 771:
(1977) 1 SCR 490], Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan
Singh [(1977) 1 SCC 423 : (1977) 2 SCR 412] and Ramji
Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha [(1977) 1 SCC 260].
(6) The onus of proof of the allegations made in the election
petition is undoubtedly on the person who assails an
election which has been concluded vide Rahim Khan v.
Khurshid Ahmed [(1974) 2 SCC 660], Mohan Singh v.
Bhanwarlal [(1964) 5 SCR 12: AIR 1964 SC 1366] and Ramji
Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha [(1977) 1 SCC 260].”

22. So far as the ground contained in clause (d) of Section
100(1) of the Act, with regard to improper acceptance of
nomination of the Appellant is concerned, there is not a single
averment made in the Election Petition as to how the result of
the election, in so far as the appellant was concerned, was
materially aKected by improper acceptance of his nomination,
so as to constitute a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(i)
of the Act. Though it is true that the Election Petitioner is not
required to state as to how corrupt practice has materially
aKected the result of the election, nonetheless it is
mandatory to state when clause (d)(i) of Section 100(i) is
invoked as to how the result of election was materially
aKected by improper acceptance of nomination form of the
appellant. (Emphasis supplied)

24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings have to
be precise, speciIc and unambiguous. If the allegations
contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as
contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the
requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election
Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of
CPC. An omission of a single material fact leading to an
incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise
statement of material facts on which the Election petitioner
relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection
of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section
83 and 87 of the RP Act.”

29. As to what constitute material facts was considered by Apex

Court in Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia 17, where the Apex Court

held as under:

17 (1977) 1 SCC 511.

SQ Pathan 22/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

“All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a
party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his
defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of
corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic
facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt
practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate
before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-
petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such
required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the
nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the
special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts
which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete
cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded
and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to
disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1) (a).”

30. In the case of Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari18, the

Apex Court has held in Paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12 as under:-

“10. A reading of the above provision with Section 83 of the
1951 Act leaves no manner of doubt that where a returned
candidate is alleged to be guilty of non-compliance with the
provisions of the Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or
orders made thereunder and his election is sought to be
declared void on such ground, it is essential for the election
petitioner to aver by pleading material facts that the result of
the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate
has been materially aKected by such breach or non-
observance. If the election petition goes to trial then the
election petitioner has also to prove the charge of breach or
non-compliance as well as establish that the result of the
election has been materially aKected. It is only on the basis of
such pleading and proof that the Court may be in a position to
form opinion and record a Inding that breach or non-
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the 1951
Act or any rules or orders made thereunder has materially
aKected the result of the election before the election of the
returned candidate could be declared void.

11. A mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or
the statutory provisions noticed above, by itself, does not
result in invalidating the election of a returned candidate
under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). The sine qua non for declaring the
election of a returned candidate to be void on the ground
under clause (iv) of Section 100(1)(d) is further proof of the
fact that such breach or non-observance has resulted in
materially aKecting the result of the returned candidate. In

18 (2012) 3 SCC 314.

SQ Pathan 23/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

other words, the violation or breach or non-observation or
non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the
1951 Act or the rules or the orders made thereunder, by itself,
does not render the election of a returned candidate void
Section 100(1)(d)(iv). For the election petitioner to succeed on
such ground viz. Section 100(1)(d)(iv), he has not only to plead
and prove the ground but also that the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been
materially aKected. The view that we have taken Inds support
from the three decisions of this Court in: (1) Jabar Singh v.
Genda Lal [AIR 1964 SC 1200 : (1964) 6 SCR 54] ; (2) L.R.
Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekar [(1999) 1 SCC 666];
and (3) Uma Ballav Rath v. Maheshwar Mohanty [(1999) 3 SCC
357].(Emphasis supplied)

12. Although the impugned judgment runs into 30 pages, but
unfortunately it does not reJect any consideration on the
most vital aspect as to whether the non-disclosure of the
information concerning the appellant's Irst wife and the
dependent children born from that wedlock and their assets
and liabilities has materially aKected the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate. As a matter of
fact, in the entire election petition there is no pleading at all
that the suppression of the information by the returned
candidate in the aHdavit Iled along with the nomination
papers with regard to his Irst wife and dependent children
from her and non-disclosure of their assets and liabilities has
materially aKected the result of the election. There is no issue
framed in this regard nor is there any evidence let in by the
election petitioner. The High Court has also not formed any
opinion on this aspect.”

31. In light of above enunciation of law, if the pleadings in the

Petition are perused, the Petition is bereft of any material pleadings to

demonstrate as to how the improper acceptance of nomination form

has materially aKected the result of the election in so far as it concerns

the returned candidate. Despite the absence of material pleadings, if

the allegations are considered, insofar as the suppression of pending

security dues are concerned, it is the petitioner’s own case that he had

applied under the RTI Act for information, in response to which it was

SQ Pathan 24/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

stated that no such information was available. The averment itself is

the answer to the case of suppression of government dues by the

Applicant.

32. In so far as the non furnishing of details and price of shares and

Column No 7(b) being kept blank is concerned, Note 3 of Clause 7 of

Form 26 dealing with details of movable assets prescribes that in case

of value of bonds/share debentures to give details of current market

value in stock exchange in respect of listed companies and as per books

in case of non listed companies. The column containing the particulars

of “description” has to be read in consonance with Note 3 of Clause 7

and when so read, the AHdavit correctly sets out the value of the

shares. In so far as blank column of immovable asset is concerned, the

AHdavit gives the valuation of Rajasthan House, Desuri as well as the

Applicant’s share of 50% which is compliance with the details as

prescribed. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in

Lok Prahari vs Union of India (supra) following Krishnamoorthy vs

Sivakumar & Others (supra), that non disclosure of assets and sources

of income would constitute corrupt practice. In the present case the

allegation is not about non disclosure of assets but failure to provide

the details of shares and prices of shares. The details are provided as

per the prescribed format and there is no suppression of asset to

constitute corrupt practice.

SQ Pathan 25/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

33. The inclusion of C.R. No 387 of 2022 in the AHdavit of Applicant

demonstrates the disclosure of pendency of the said FIR against the

Applicant. The AHdavit does not state that the A Final report has

been accepted by the Court and correctly mentions that the report has

been sent to the Court. The Petition while pleading about the recall of

A Final report by the Magistrate does not plead about the order of

recall being to the knowledge of the Applicant, which is a material fact

to be pleaded. The AHdavit shows that the Applicant has disclosed all

criminal cases pending against him.

34. It is also no answer to say that the Petitioner is only required to

point out the suppression and the Applicant is required to furnish the

necessary details. The burden is necessarily on the party who

approaches the Court seeking the relief that the election be declared

void. There is no right to challenge the election outside the statute

and there has to be strict compliance of the statutory provisions.

Absence of material facts to substantiate the suppression would

constitute non compliance of Section 83(1)(b) of R.P. Act. Non-

disclosure of a cause of action would entail rejection of the petition

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

35. The importance of setting out the material fact to constitute a

complete cause of action was summed up by Apex Court in Kanimozhi

SQ Pathan 26/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar (supra) in Paragraph No.28 as

under:-

“28. The legal position enunciated in afore-stated cases may
be summed up as under:-
i. Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an Election
petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts
on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not
stated in an Election petition, the same is liable to be
dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be
covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.
ii. The material facts must be such facts as would aKord a basis
for the allegations made in the petition and would
constitute the cause of action, that is every fact which it
would be necessary for the plaintiK/petitioner to prove, if
traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of
court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an
incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint
would become bad.
iii. Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which would
constitute a complete cause of action. Material facts would
include positive statement of facts as also positive
averment of a negative fact, if necessary.
iv. In order to get an election declared as void under Section
100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner must
aver that on account of non-compliance with the provisions
of the Constitution or of the Act or any rules or orders
made under the Act, the result of the election, in so far as it
concerned the returned candidate, was materially aKected.
v. The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be
treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a
person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose.
vi. An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the
omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete
cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement
of material facts on which the petitioner relies for
establishing a cause of action, in exercise of the powers
under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC read with the
mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the RP
Act.”

SQ Pathan 27/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

36. The omission to state single material fact leading to incomplete

cause of action can lead to summary dismissal of the Election Petition

The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Election Petition can be

summarily dismissed on the omission of single material fact pleading to

an incomplete cause of action. In light of the settled principles, in so

far the allegation of improper acceptance of nomination form is

concerned, the Petition is completely silent as to how the improper

acceptance of nomination has materially aKected the result of election

and does not disclose a cause of action. The relief sought under Section

100(1) (b) on allegation of corrupt practice by suppression of two FIR’s

lacks full particulars as mandated by Section 83(1)(b) so as to disclose a

cause of action.

37. The decision of Arunadada vs Dadaji (supra), is a judgment

after trial. The decision does not lay down any proposition that the

incomplete information as to the description of criminal oKence

constitutes corrupt practice of undue inJuence. On the contrary, the

argument canvassed was that the returned candidate become

disqualiIed upon non disclosure under Section 100 (1)(a) of R.P. Act. In

present case, it is not the case of the Election Petitioner of

disqualiIcation under Section 100(1)(a) of R.P. Act. The Learned Single

Judge answered the issue of disqualiIcation in the aHrmative. The

decision is of no assistance to the Election Petitioner.

SQ Pathan 28/29
AEP-14-2025 & EP-5-2025.doc

38. Considering that in the Election Petition, the pleadings have to

be speciIc, precise and unambiguous as provided by Section 83 of the

R. P. Act, where the Election Petition even upon holistic reading of the

entire plaint does not disclose cause of action, the same is liable to be

dismissed. Upon so reading of the plaint, the pleadings does not

disclose any cause of action under sub-section (1) of Section 100 to

maintain the Election Petition and is thus, liable to be rejected under

Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC and is accordingly, rejected.

39. In light of the above discussion, the Application is allowed.

Election Petition stands dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

SQ Pathan 29/29

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.