Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court today rejected the three all three petition challenging the election of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Jugal M Lokhandwala (Thakor) as BJP candidates during July 5, 2019 by polls on the two Rajyasabha seats in Gujarat vacated due to resignation of union ministers Amit Shah and Smriti Irani after their winning Loksabha election.

The single bench of Justice Bela Trivedi rejected the petitions filed by the two defeated Congress candidates Gaurav Pandya (lost to Jaishankar) and Chandrikaben Chudasama (lost to Thakor ) and the one by leader of opposition in Gujarat assembly Paresh Dhanani for not following the procedure laid down in the section 81 and 82, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In other terms the petitions have been rejected due to challenging two different election through a single petition and also not making the candidate a party whose election itself was challenged.

Counsel of Jaishankar and Thakor, Chitrajeet Upadhyay said that initially in August this year a total of seven petitions (Two each by Pandya and Chudasama and three by Dhanani) were filed challenging the elections of which four were rejected in the very beginning on the basis of various technical error.

Advocate and Congress leader B M Mangukiya had represented the Congress leaders in the court. He said that the order would be challenged in the apex court.

The Supreme Court had earlier rejected a plea by the Gujarat Congress just after the EC notification was issued. That plea had questioned the holding of two separate by polls for the two seat. Notably, looking at the arithmetic of the 182 member Gujarat assembly, if the two elections would have been held simultaneously ie one MLA could have voted for any one of the candidate, Congress could have won one of the two seats.

The 4 sections of the RP Act mentioned in the judgment were as following – Section 81. Presentation of petitions.—(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in [sub-section (1)] of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Explanation.—In this sub-section, “elector” means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not. Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

Section 82. Parties to the petition.—A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition— (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.

Section 83. Contents of petition.—(1) An election petition— (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.

Section 86. Trial of election petitions.—(1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.

Appeals would be filed in the apex court: Mangukiya

Ahmedabad: Congress leader and advocate of all the three petitioners who had challenged the election of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Jugal M Lokhandwala (Thakor) as BJP candidates during July 5, 2019 by polls on the two Rajyasabha seats in Gujarat, B M Mangukiya today said that appeals would be filed against the high court order rejecting these petitions in the supreme court.

He also said that the doors of the apex court would also be knocked for the earlier four petitions which were rejected by the high court on the basis of technical grounds.

Mangukiya said that that the high court has rejected all the petitions not due to any lack of merit but more on technical grounds and not following certain procedures.
‘We will file appeals in the apex court,’ he said.

Notably the two RS seats in Gujarat where by polls were held were vacated due to resignation of union ministers Amit Shah and Smriti Irani after their winning Loksabha election.

The single bench of Justice Bela Trivedi today rejected the petitions filed by the two defeated Congress candidates Gaurav Pandya (lost to Jaishankar) and Chandrikaben Chudasama (lost to Thakor ) and the one by leader of opposition in Gujarat assembly Paresh Dhanani for not following the procedure laid down in the section 81 and 82, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In other terms the petitions have been rejected due to challenging two different election through a single petition and also not making the candidate a party whose election itself was challenged.

Initially in August this year a total of seven petitions (Two each by Pandya and Chudasama and three by Dhanani) were filed challenging the elections of which four were rejected in the very beginning on the basis of various technical error.

DeshGujarat

DeshGujarat