HC refuses to dismiss plea challenging election victory of NCP MLA in Pimpri

A single-judge bench of justice Gauri Godse held that the allegations against Bansode of undeclared debts, and claims of irregularities in the use of EVM-VVPAT machines have established a “cause of action”, which must be examined during the trial

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed an application by Pimpri MLA from the Nationalist Congress Party, Anna Dadu Bansode objecting to a petition challenging his 2024 election victory. A single-judge bench of justice Gauri Godse held that the allegations against Bansode of undeclared debts, and claims of irregularities in the use of EVM-VVPAT machines have established a “cause of action”, which must be examined during the trial.

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed an application by Pimpri MLA from the Nationalist Congress Party, Anna Dadu Bansode objecting to a petition challenging his 2024 election victory. (Shutterstock)

Bansode’s application came as a response to a petition by Sulakshana Dhar, runner-up in the November 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections from the Pimpri seat. After Bansode won the election with 109,239 votes, Dhar said that Bansode had filed a false affidavit declaring his properties and financial liabilities as per Form 26. She added that during the voting process the EVM-VVPAT machines were also not used as mandated. Dhar called for a forensic assessment and trial of the matter.

However, the returning officer responsible for overseeing the elections in Pimpri, rejected her objections, and said that her objections were submitted after the scrutiny process where the election commission verifies a candidate’s application.

Dhar insisted that she had submitted the objections on October 30, 2024, before 11 am when the scrutiny process began. After Dhar approached the Bombay High Court seeking an order that would cancel Bansode’s election, he responded with an application seeking the rejection of Dhar’s petition.

Dismissing Bansode’s application, the court held that Dhar had provided all the necessary facts to substantiate her allegations and to make the matter a “triable issue”. The bench noted that her allegations were supported by relevant documents, including details of the properties and the financial liabilities allegedly suppressed by Bansode.

The court also noted that the returning officer, despite accepting Dhar’s objections in the beginning, had failed to acknowledge them later and given “undue benefit to Bansode”. Stating that Bansode’s defence can only be considered at the stage of trial, the bench concluded, “The cause of action has been disclosed by the petitioner. The petition cannot be rejected at the threshold”.