HC rejects Amol Kirtikar’s election petition against Ravindra Waikar

The court was hearing a plea filed by Waikar seeking rejection of Kirtikar’s election petition on the grounds that it neither contained concise statement of material facts nor disclosed necessary cause of action as required under the Representation of Peoples Act

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday rejected Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Amol Kirtikar’s petition questioning the election of his rival Ravindra Waikar from Shiv Sena from the Mumbai North West Lok Sabha constituency, saying it lacked concise statement of material facts on which grounds for setting aside the election could be made out.

HC rejects Amol Kirtikar’s election petition against Ravindra Waikar

“In the absence of necessary pleadings, the election petition is liable to be rejected,” the single judge bench of justice Sandeep Marne said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Waikar seeking rejection of Kirtikar’s election petition on the grounds that it neither contained concise statement of material facts nor disclosed necessary cause of action as required under the Representation of Peoples Act.

Waikar had won the Lok Sabha poll from Mumbai North West by a slim margin of 48 votes. According to results declared on June 4, Waikar had secured 452,644 votes (451,094 EVM votes and 1,550 postal ballots) while Kirtikar had bagged 452,596 votes (4,51,095 EVM votes and 1,500 postal ballots).

In his election petition, Kirtikar claimed that Waikar’s election was void on account of various glaring and serious lapses on the part of election officials deputed for the counting of votes, which resulted in 333 uncounted tendered votes. Besides, no one from Kiritkar’s side was present to note the numbers from the original form 17-C (part II) from which data was entered in the ENCORE system at the conclusion of each round, based on which the final results could be tallied.

Election officers from three assembly segments – Jogeshwari, Versova and Goregaon, covering 839 polling booths – did not provide form 17-C (Part II) to Kirtikar or his agents though mandatory, the petition noted. “The failure to hand over Form 17-C (Part II) in respect of the three assembly segments has resulted in completely denying the election petitioner an opportunity to cross-verify the final results,” it said.

The petition further noted that as per numbers recorded by Kirtikar’s counting agents at different counting tables, he had secured 650 more votes than Waikar at the end of the 26th round of counting.

“However, it was announced by the returning officer that the election petitioner (Kirtikar) got only one vote more than the returned candidate (Waikar) at the end of all 26 rounds, based on the entries made in form 20,” the petition said.

Immediately after noticing the discrepancy, Kirtikar’s election agents sought a re-counting of votes, but the returning officer turned down the request. A formal application was filed on his behalf for re-counting of EVM votes, but it was recorded to be filed around 12 minutes after the results were declared at 7.54pm, said the petition.