Local bodies minister Anil Joshi may have got relief from the Punjab and Haryana high court in a petition that challenged the validity of his election to the Punjab assembly in 2012, but he still has to face the court in the ‘dual vote case’.
The high court had on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Amritsar-based lawyer Vineet Mahajan and also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for wasting the court’s time.
Explaining the details of the case, Mahajan, along with fellow lawyer Sandeep Gorsi, said here on Tuesday that in the case, which was dismissed by the high court, they had demanded that Joshi’s election from the Amritsar North constituency should be declared null and void, as he had committed a number of electoral offences such as being a voter in more than one assembly constituencies.
“In the petition, I had demanded that Joshi had no right to continue as a member of the assembly and the Amritsar North seat should be declared vacant. The petition also sought all benefits that Joshi had drawn as a member of the legislative assembly should be withdrawn and also taken back,” said Mahajan, while talking to reporters.
Mahajan, along with Gorsi, who are the petitioners in the ‘dual votes’ case, said the ‘dual votes’ case was very much still being heard in a local court. The next date of hearing is June 9, they said, while showing the file related to the case. The dual votes case was registered on the directions of the Election Commission of India (EC) against Joshi, his wife and seven other members of his family. On the basis of records presented before the EC, they were shown as voters from more than one place.
Gorsi pointed out that the case, which was registered on the complaint of the returning officer of the Amritsar North assembly segment, first came up for hearing in a local court on February 26, 2014 and a number of hearings had taken place. “The status now is that bailable warrants have been issued against Joshi and others in this case,” stated Gorsi. The two advocates ridiculed the minister for giving false information to the public that the dual votes’ case had been dismissed.