Lawtext - Where Words Transform into Power!

CASE NOTE & SUMMARY

The Bombay High Court examined the maintainability of an election petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenging the election result of Ravindra Dattaram Waikar by a margin of 48 votes. The case revolved around alleged procedural irregularities in vote counting, non-compliance with statutory provisions, and improper rejection of recount requests. The Court deliberated on the sufficiency of pleadings under Sections 83 and 100 of the RP Act and dismissed the petition for lack of material facts demonstrating how the irregularities materially affected the election outcome.

Maintainability: The election petition failed to provide sufficient material facts under Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Material Effect Requirement: Non-compliance or procedural irregularities must materially affect the election result to render it void under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or (iv).

Statutory Compliance: The Representation of People Act, 1951, mandates strict adherence, and election petitions must meet precise statutory requirements.

Facts of the Case:

1. Election Background (Para 3–5):

Constituency and Results: The election for the 27-Mumbai North-West Constituency was conducted on May 20, 2024, with results declared on June 4, 2024. Ravindra Dattaram Waikar won by 48 votes against Amol Gajanan Kirtikar.

Votes Tally:

Waikar: 4,52,644 votes

Kirtikar: 4,52,596 votes

2. Grounds of Challenge (Para 6):

The petitioner alleged irregularities, including:

Denial of access for counting agents.

Non-provision of statutory forms (Form 17-C).

Refusal of recounting requests.

Unauthorized use of mobile phones during counting.

Discrepancies in tendered votes.

3. Respondent’s Defense (Para 8–14):

The respondent contended that the petition lacked material facts necessary under Sections 83(1)(a) and 100(1)(d) of the RP Act. They argued that alleged irregularities were minor and did not materially affect the election outcome.

Key Legal Provisions and Acts Discussed:

Representation of People Act, 1951: Sections 83(1)(a), 100(1)(d)(iii) & (iv).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11.

Ratio Decidendi:

Material Effect Criterion: An election can be voided only if the alleged irregularities materially affect the election result. The petition failed to establish this.

Specific Pleadings: Vague allegations without supporting material facts cannot sustain an election petition.

Subjects:

Election Law, Representation of People Act, Judicial Review
Election Petition, Judicial Process, Representation of People Act, Vote Counting, Electoral Challenges

ISSUE OF CONSIDERATION

Ravindra Dattaram Waikar In the matter of Amol Gajanan Kirtikar and Others Versus Ravindra Dattaram Waikar and Others

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 195

Case Number: APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.29930 OF 2024 WITH APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.29880 OF 2024 WITH ELECTION PETITION NO.6 OF 2024

Date of Decision: 2024-12-19

Case Title: Ravindra Dattaram Waikar In the matter of Amol Gajanan Kirtikar and Others Versus Ravindra Dattaram Waikar and Others

Before Judge: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Advocate(s): Mr. Pradeep M. Patil, with Mr. Parvinchand B. Gole and Mr. Nimish S. Parakh i/b Mr. Amit A. Karande, for the Petitioners. Mr. Anil Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Mr.Shyamsunder Jadhav, Ms. Kavita Dhanuka, Mr. Vishal Acharya, Mr. Rohan Mirpurey, Ms. Savita Suryavanshi and Bhavya Shah i/b Mr. Chirag Shah, for Respondent No.1. Adv. Deepti Thorat i/b Ashwini Jadhav, for Respondent No.5. Mr. Jayant Gohil with Mr. Sunil Humbre, for Respondent No.7. Mr. Surindar Mohan Arora, Respondent No.7 present-in-person. Mr. Rohan Satone, Respondent No.8 present-in-person. Mr. Bharat Khimji Shah, Respondent No.13 present-in-person. Mr. Santosh Manik Rayban, Respondent No.20 present-in-person.

Appellant: Ravindra Dattaram Waikar In the matter of Amol Gajanan Kirtikar and Others Versus

Respondent: Ravindra Dattaram Waikar and Others