Supreme Court to hear ex-MLA Pabubha Manek\'s plea on April 22



Supreme Court to hear ex-MLA Pabubha Manek's plea on April 22

The High Court had on April 12 set aside Manek's election from the Dwarka seat for submitting a defective nomination form.


Pabubha Manek

Pabubha Manek

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on April 22 the appeal of BJP leader Pabubha Manek challenging the Gujarat High Court's decision to invalidate his election from the Dwarka Assembly seat.

The High Court had on April 12 set aside Manek's election from the Dwarka seat for submitting a defective nomination form. The High Court had also ordered by-election for the seat.

Manek was elected to the Assembly from the Dwarka seat for the seventh consecutive term in the 2017 elections. However, his victory was challenged in the High Court by Congress candidate Meraman Goria.

A bench headed by chief justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it would hear the BJP leader's appeal against the High Court verdict on April 22.

In his petition in the High Court, Goria had sought setting aside of Manek's election as he had submitted a defective nomination form which had no mention about the name and number of the constituency, which is 82-Dwarka, from where he was contesting.

As per the petition, Manek's proposer Dharnant Chavda mentioned his own name in a column meant for the number and name of the constituency.

Instead of writing '82-Dwarka' in the specified space, Chavda wrote his full name in the nomination form.

Admitting Goria's contention, the court had cancelled the election held for Dwarka seat in December 2017 saying the defect in the nomination form was a "defect of substantial character as contemplated under provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951".

Goria had also sought to declare himself as the winner for garnering second highest vote after Manek in the election, but the court did not accept his prayer and only ordered the cancellation of Manek's election.

The High Court had also noted that the returning officer's action of rejecting the objections against Manek's nomination was illegal. The court had said the election's result had been materially affected by the improper acceptance of Manek's nomination.

With agency inputs