The petition filed by Raghav Chadha alleged that incomplete disclosure of information was made by the BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri in his affidavit while filing nomination papers. (Source: File)The Delhi High Court Friday sought response from BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri and his party on a plea by rival AAP leader Raghav Chadha challenging his election to Lok Sabha from South Delhi parliamentary constituency.
Justice Sanjeev Narula issued them notices seeking their stand on the plea before September 2, the next date of hearing.
The court also directed the returning officer to preserve the election records relating to the parliamentary polls for South Delhi constituency.
The petition filed by Chadha alleged that incomplete disclosure of information was made by the BJP leader in his affidavit while filing nomination papers.
The AAP leader has also sought that the election results declaring Bidhuri as the winning candidate by a margin of over 3.6 lakh votes be held as void and he be declared as winner for securing next highest tally of votes in the constituency.
The petition, filed through advocate R Arunadhri Iyer, has contended that the election of Bidhuri was vitiated by the “corrupt practices of undue influence committed by the candidate inasmuch as by failing to disclose material particulars regarding his antecedents…”
The AAP leader, in his plea, has said, “The BJP candidate willfully and intentionally concealed the factum of registration of an FIR against him in Police Station… Muzaffarpur, Bihar, under sections 504, 506, 153 and 153(a) of the IPC.”
The petition has alleged that Bidhuri had declared false income, including that of his income as well as his wife.
It has claimed that by not disclosing fully or publicising particulars of his criminal antecedents, the BJP candidate has committed the corrupt practice of undue influence in the exercise of electoral rights of the citizens of the national capital.
“The returning officer erred in accepting the nomination of the BJP candidate when he wilfully and intentionally failed to comply with the mandates of the Act, the Rules made thereunder as well as the directions of the Supreme Court,” it said.
