[Sena Vs Sena] Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Election Petition Against Shinde Faction MP Ravindra Waikar, Who Won By 48 Votes

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne issued a notice to Waikar, requiring him to submit a reply within four weeks.

[Sena Vs Sena] Bombay High Court Issues Notice on Election Petition Against Shinde Faction MP Ravindra Waikar, Who Won by 48 Votes

Bombay, Maharashtra: Today (2nd Sept): The Bombay High Court asked MP Ravindra Waikar of the Shiv Sena Shinde faction to respond to a petition filed by Amol Kirtikar of the Shiv Sena Uddhav faction, challenging Waikar’s victory in the Mumbai North West constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne issued a notice to Waikar, requiring him to submit a reply within four weeks.

The election petition filed by Amol Kirtikar on July 16 requests the high court to annul Waikar’s election as the MP from Mumbai North-West constituency and declare it “null and void.”

Kirtikar also seeks to be declared the winner of the constituency. His petition claims that a recount was requested on the day of counting due to discrepancies.

Waikar won by a narrow margin of 48 votes over Kirtikar in the recent general elections. Kirtikar, represented by advocate Amit A. Karande, claims Waikar’s election should be invalidated due to significant irregularities in the vote counting process.

Earlier, Justice Sandeep Marne issued summons to Waikar and 19 other respondents (including other candidates from the constituency) and scheduled the matter for hearing on September 2.

Justice Marne instructed that summons be returned on that date.

The petition alleges significant lapses by the election officials during the counting process, which it claims materially affected the election results. It contends that 333 votes were improperly counted due to voter impersonation and that there were breaches of election rules and procedures by the Election Commission officials.

The petition also accuses the returning officer of being “high-handed and arbitrary” during the counting.

Kirtikar has requested the court to review video recordings of the entire counting process as part of his plea.

This is the second petition challenging Waikar’s election.

Last month, Bharat Shah from the Hindu Samaj Party, another candidate from the same constituency, filed a similar petition. Shah’s plea was heard by a different bench last week, which directed him to file an election petition and seek a hearing before the appropriate bench.

The petition highlights issues such as improper handling of 333 tendered votes, breaches of statutory rules by the Returning Officer, denial of Kirtikar’s agents’ right to observe the count, failure to provide Form 17-C (Part II) for 839 polling booths, and an expedited rejection of Kirtikar’s recount request.

Additionally, the petition cites unauthorized mobile phone use in the counting area, voter impersonation, and discrepancies in recording tendered votes.

Kirtikar seeks to have Waikar’s election annulled and himself declared the winner.

Case Title: Amol Gajanan Kirtikar v Ravindra Dattaram Waikar & Ors.