New Delhi: The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Durgesh Pathak in a Delhi assembly bypoll in 2022 from Rajinder Nagar assembly constituency.
One Ramesh Kumar Khatri, the petitioner, alleged that Pathak showed fabricated expenses in the day-to-day expenditure register and did not disclose true accounts of expenditure, which was incurred on refreshment, hoarding, banners, pamphlets, brooms, etc., in his election expenditure register.
What did the petitioner seek?
The petitioner sought to declare his election in the bypoll null and void and also debar him from contesting assembly elections for next six years under the Representation of People (RP) Act.
Failure of a winning election candidate to maintain proper accounts wasn’t a corrupt practice: High Court
Justice Mini Pushkarna, while dismissing Khatri’s plea, said that the failure of a winning election candidate to maintain proper accounts would not affect election results and it wasn’t a corrupt practice and that even if the allegations made by the petitioner s established, that would still not amount to constituting a corrupt practice, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The High Court said that the petition fails to disclose any cause of action for declaring the election of Pathak, as null and void or for debarring the respondent from contesting the elections for six years and averments made in the petition are vague, without any supporting material and do not raise any triable issue.
Allegations made by petitioner are in nature of fishing and roving exercise
The bench further said that the election petition is reiteration of information which is in public forum and the petitioner has only given a list of events and has made wide over-arching allegations and the allegations made by petitioner are in the nature of fishing and roving exercise.
“It is held that the present petition does not disclose any cause of action. The only allegations that have been made in the election petition, are pertaining to improper maintenance of accounts by the respondent, which as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, does not fall within the scope of corrupt practice,” Justice Pushkarna held.
