G20 Presidency honour for India, all political parties are stakeholders: PM Modi at all-party meeting
"The honour is for India, not a party or person..." PM Modi at all-party meeting on India's G20 Presidency
"Only give suggestions, if you can nurture those children..." Himanta Biswa Sarma on Ajmal's remarks
President Droupadi Murmu approves new design for President's Standard and Colour and Indian Navy Crest
SC dismisses plea challenging Bombay HC order on Chandrakant Patil election issue
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition challenging the Bombay High Court order relating to the 2019 assembly election of Chandrakant Dada Patil.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit dismissed the appeal filed by Kishor Nana Shinde, who contested against Chandrakant Patil in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly Elections in 2019. Kishor Nana Shinde, who contested in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly Elections conducted in the year 2019 from the Kothrud Constituency of Pune District, challenged the Bombay High Court order dated February 26 2022.
Kishor Nana Shinde has filed his plea through advocate-on-record Rabin Majumdar.
The Bombay High Court has dismissed Shinde's plea. The petitioner said the Bombay High Court was unreasonable and incorrect.
Kishor Nana Shinde, being the candidate with the second highest votes, had filed the petition seeking a declaration that the election of the Respondent Chandrakant Patil, in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly Elections conducted in the year 2019 from the Kothrud Constituency of Pune District, is void due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1951 and Rules made under the Act of 1951.
The petition sought to declare that appellant Shinde has been duly elected upon considering that the Appellant has obtained a majority of valid votes, owing to violation of section 33 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 read with Rule 4 and 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, since the Respondent Patil has not disclosed all the information pertaining to his income sources with respect to him holding the office of profit, in his Affidavit in Form 26 as well as his Nomination Paper in Form 2(b) under Rule 4 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
The main challenge was with respect to the non-disclosure of holding the office of profit by Patil as a result of which he ought to have been disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State, as per Article 191 of the Constitution of India. (ANI)