Waikar’s advocate, Anil Sakhare, moved for the dismissal of Kirtikar’s petition, citing non-maintainability. After reserving its decision on December 11, Justice Sandeep Marne allowed Waikar’s application, effectively dismissing the petition. A detailed order will follow.
Bombay: The Bombay High Court on Thursday (19th Dec) dismissed a petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Amol Kirtikar, challenging the election of rival Shiv Sena MP Ravindra Waikar in the Mumbai North-West constituency during the recent Lok Sabha elections.
Kirtikar had lost to Waikar, representing Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena, by a narrow margin of 48 votes.
In his plea, Kirtikar alleged discrepancies in the election process and sought the court’s intervention to nullify Waikar’s election and declare himself the duly elected candidate. He claimed significant lapses by election officials during the vote counting, which he argued had impacted the outcome.
Waikar’s advocate, Anil Sakhare, moved for the dismissal of Kirtikar’s petition, citing non-maintainability. After reserving its decision on December 11, Justice Sandeep Marne allowed Waikar’s application, effectively dismissing the petition. A detailed order will follow.
Furthermore, the petition alleges serious breaches of statutory rules and orders by the Returning Officer (RO) during the counting process:
- Kirtikar’s counting agents were allegedly denied their statutory right to sit at the RO tables.
- Form 17-C (Part II) documenting the results of counting was reportedly not provided in 839 polling booths.
- Kirtikar’s request for a vote recount was swiftly rejected.
- Unauthorized use of mobile phones was observed in the counting area.
- There were allegations of impersonation of electors.
- Discrepancies were noted in the recording of tendered votes.
As a remedy, the petition seeks to annul Waikar’s election and declare Kirtikar as the rightful winner.
It further alleged that the returning officer displayed undue haste and arbitrary behavior during the vote counting. Kirtikar also requested the court to review video recordings of the entire counting process as part of his case.
During the proceedings, Justice Marne noted tendered votes as the primary issue of dispute. Tendered votes are cast when a voter discovers their vote has already been improperly recorded. Kirtikar’s advocates, Pradip Patil and Amit Karande, argued that while 333 tendered votes were recorded, 120 were missing and unaccounted for.
They also raised concerns about irregularities such as restricted seating for counting agents and unauthorized mobile phone usage, though they emphasized tendered votes as their main grievance.
Kirtikar’s request for a recount was also denied. Waikar’s counsel argued that the petition lacked specific evidence to demonstrate how tendered votes would have altered the result. Waikar had secured 4,52,644 votes, while Kirtikar received 4,52,596 votes.
