HC rejects plea challenging MLC’s election

On other questions as to whether the petition had been admitted within the stipulated period, Justice Rebello held that it had been filed well in time. He also held that it was not necessary, as per Supreme Court judgements that the petitioner establish that the election was materially affected due to the wrongful acceptance of the nomination form.

Advocate for Mehta, Shekhar Naphde had contended that unless the petitioner had conclusively proved that the nomination form of his client that was signed by 10 Congress MLAs when it was blank, caused a “material difference to the poll outcome”, the elections of his client as well as that of the ten other candidates who were elected, could not be set aside.

Gidwani, had based his election petition on the furore that broke out in the Congress party when show cause notices were sent to the Congress MLAs who had signed the nomination form of Mehta, who was not given the partyticket. Congress MLAs, including R R Patil and Ashok Dhatrak, called in as witnesses and interrogated, admitted that they had signed blank forms, which eventually ended up being used by Mehta for his candidature. They claimed that they did not know Mehta would use it.

The elections to the state legislative council had taken place on June 18, 1998 and ten MLCs were elected. Since the elections were based on preferential ballot, counsel for Gidwani, Mukesh Vashi had contended that the court should set aside the elections of all the candidates to the council.

However, Naphde argued that Gidwani had not complained about the nomination form when it was presented to the returning officer. Neither was any complaint of this kind made when the results of the election were declared on June 18, 1998.

Gidwani, who was present in court remarked that he would appeal in the Supreme Court.