BMC corporator’s ’17 win null & void: Court

It also said that Jamsandekar, who had won the second highest votes from L-ward of the city, can be declared as the winning corporator. The term of those elected in the BMC in 2017 ends on March 7.

“Before starting my judgment, I want to bring on record that because of the impact of Covid-19, the litigants who were in the dominant position of the proceedings have succeeded to drag the matter for months and months together. Therefore, this court could not decide this matter prior to today. The period of present Council of MCGM is going to be completed on 7th March, 2022, so the present matter though it’s effect for short term but it is very material to decide matter as judgment is not only affects the parties but also to the voters who voted in the election of 2017 from ward no.159. This matter is also necessary to be decided prior to the completion of the period of MCGM to maintain the purity of election,” additional sessions judge P R Choudhary said.

Voting was held for election of BMC corporators on February 21, 2017 and its results were announced two days later on February 23. More was declared winner after he received 6,202 votes and Jamsandekar trailed behind him at 4,248 votes. After the results, Jamsandekar approached the Small Causes court in Mumbai with an election petition seeking to declare More’s win as null and void, alleging that his nomination papers concealed information.

As per rules, a candidate contesting election is required to submit an affidavit along with the nomination form declaring assets, liabilities and criminal record. If any information is concealed or wrong, then it is considered a corrupt practice which can result in the election being declared as null and void.

Jamsandekar had in her petition claimed that More had given wrong information about his educational qualification, where he said that he had studied till Class V instead of Class VIII, as his school certificate shows.

It was also claimed that he had not revealed his caste and the PAN details of his wife. The court held that not revealing these details have not affected the election. It, however, concealed information with regard to More’s properties, including the ownership of a house and a commercial property. It also held that an agricultural land is still in More’s name which he had claimed was sold.

Similarly, a land he claimed to have gifted to his sister by a gift deed was not registered and therefore was an “afterthought”. The court held that these amount to corrupt practices and therefore the election can be declared null and void.

More through his lawyers had denied any corrupt practice claiming that correct information had been given. He sought a stay on the order to file an appeal but the court said that it cannot stay its own order.