Bombay HC dismisses election petition against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Dina Patil's victory in LS polls

Bombay High Court. File Pic

On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court dismissed an election petition filed against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Dina Patil.

According to Bar and Bench, the petition was filed by Shahaji Thorat, an independent candidate, challenging the election of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Dina Patil from Mumbai's North East constituency in the recent Lok Sabha elections.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the plea after observing that the petitioner, Shahaji Thorat, had failed to implead all the contesting candidates in his petition, despite seeking a declaration of himself as the successful election candidate, the Bar and Bench reported.

The Court said that under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, it is mandatory to include all contesting candidates when the petitioner is requesting a declaration regarding their own election.

The court said that the Election Petition filed by the Petitioner does not comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 82 of the Act and on this ground, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed, the Bar and Bench reported.

According to the report, Thorat, contested the election, claimed that Patil's nomination was invalid because he had omitted his mother's name alongside his father's, which was a required detail. Thorat also sought to be declared the winner in Patil's place.

The court observed that while the election results were announced on June 4, 2024, Thorat did not seek to add the other 18 contesting candidates as respondents until September 3, well after the statutory 45-day period had passed. Patil's lawyer, Advocate Vijay Nair contended that these candidates had the right to file petitions challenging the election, and the failure to include them within the prescribed timeframe constituted a violation of the law.

The Court agreed that Thorat's failure to implead all contesting candidates was a fundamental defect, and filing an application for summons could not remedy this.

The Court highlighted that election petitions are neither a fundamental nor a common law right and must adhere strictly to statutory requirements. As a result, it dismissed the election petition and rejected the petitioner's request for a summons.