New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has refused to reject a petition challenging the election of AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak in the 2022 assembly by-elections.
The petition has challenged Pathak's election as legislator from Rajinder Nagar Assembly constituency here in the June 2022 by-election for having indulged in corrupt practices.
Pathak was declared winner of Rajinder Nagar constituency by defeating his nearest rival by a margin of 11,468 votes.
Justice Yashwant Varma, in a 103-page order passed on Monday, dismissed Pathak's application seeking rejection of the election petition filed against him, saying there was no justification for doing so at this stage.
The high court filed the election petition before the list court on July 22 to continue the proceedings.
Petitioner Rajan Tewari, who claimed to be a voter in Rajinder Nagar constituency, contested the election alleging non-disclosure of criminal record, holding office for profit on the date of nomination scrutiny, suppression of income tax returns income from financial companies. year 2019-20 and disclosure of incorrect valuation of shares of a company in the nomination form.
The petitioner alleged that apart from indulging in corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, Pathak had deliberately and intentionally concealed facts that would amount to undue influence under the law.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, in his petition, claimed that the petition had not disclosed a cause of action and the allegation of non-disclosure of criminal record is based on the fact that he had not mentioned details related to with a FIR TREE.
His lawyer submitted that Pathak's name was not mentioned in the list of accused in the FIR and that the relevant provisions of the law would provide that a candidate is required to disclose details only of those criminal cases in which any of the charges have been formulated by a court or where knowledge has been taken.
The high court noted that Tewari has made "broad and sweeping allegations" alleging corrupt practices, undue influence and improper acceptance of a nomination.
"It becomes clear and evident that there is manifest fault on the part of the petitioner for election in having alleged improper acceptance of the nomination or corrupt practice or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, Act, Regulations or Orders issued under had materially affected the results of the elections," he said. The court, however, said it was aware of the clear legal position that a petition cannot be rejected in part.
"Consequently, while we have ruled in favor of the petitioner (Pathak) in respect of profit office, disclosure of ITR and overstatement of shareholding issues,...the question whether disclosure is required in respect of an FIR in According to the law, the meaning to be attributed to the expression -- pending criminal proceedings -- are clearly triable issues.
"Therefore, we do not find any justification to reject the election petition at this time and in that aspect," he said.
The petitioner has requested that the elections be declared void on the grounds that the AAP leader engaged in "corrupt practices".
He has argued that the MLA failed to disclose in his nomination papers the existence of an FIR against him for alleged commission of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, which constitutes a violation of the PR Law.
He has further claimed that Pathak was also holding a "lucrative position" as a member of the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights at the time of the elections and should therefore be disqualified.
The petition has challenged Pathak's election as legislator from Rajinder Nagar Assembly constituency here in the June 2022 by-election for having indulged in corrupt practices.
Pathak was declared winner of Rajinder Nagar constituency by defeating his nearest rival by a margin of 11,468 votes.
Justice Yashwant Varma, in a 103-page order passed on Monday, dismissed Pathak's application seeking rejection of the election petition filed against him, saying there was no justification for doing so at this stage.
The high court filed the election petition before the list court on July 22 to continue the proceedings.
Petitioner Rajan Tewari, who claimed to be a voter in Rajinder Nagar constituency, contested the election alleging non-disclosure of criminal record, holding office for profit on the date of nomination scrutiny, suppression of income tax returns income from financial companies. year 2019-20 and disclosure of incorrect valuation of shares of a company in the nomination form.
The petitioner alleged that apart from indulging in corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, Pathak had deliberately and intentionally concealed facts that would amount to undue influence under the law.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, in his petition, claimed that the petition had not disclosed a cause of action and the allegation of non-disclosure of criminal record is based on the fact that he had not mentioned details related to with a FIR TREE.
His lawyer submitted that Pathak's name was not mentioned in the list of accused in the FIR and that the relevant provisions of the law would provide that a candidate is required to disclose details only of those criminal cases in which any of the charges have been formulated by a court or where knowledge has been taken.
The high court noted that Tewari has made "broad and sweeping allegations" alleging corrupt practices, undue influence and improper acceptance of a nomination.
"It becomes clear and evident that there is manifest fault on the part of the petitioner for election in having alleged improper acceptance of the nomination or corrupt practice or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, Act, Regulations or Orders issued under had materially affected the results of the elections," he said. The court, however, said it was aware of the clear legal position that a petition cannot be rejected in part.
"Consequently, while we have ruled in favor of the petitioner (Pathak) in respect of profit office, disclosure of ITR and overstatement of shareholding issues,...the question whether disclosure is required in respect of an FIR in According to the law, the meaning to be attributed to the expression -- pending criminal proceedings -- are clearly triable issues.
"Therefore, we do not find any justification to reject the election petition at this time and in that aspect," he said.
The petitioner has requested that the elections be declared void on the grounds that the AAP leader engaged in "corrupt practices".
He has argued that the MLA failed to disclose in his nomination papers the existence of an FIR against him for alleged commission of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, which constitutes a violation of the PR Law.
He has further claimed that Pathak was also holding a "lucrative position" as a member of the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights at the time of the elections and should therefore be disqualified.
