Nagpur:The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has issued summons to Ajit Pawar faction NCP MLA Manoj Kayande, BJP MLA Sudhir Mungantiwar, and Deorao Bhongade, directing them to respond within three weeks to election petitions filed by opposition candidates.
The petitions have been filed by Rajendra Shingne (NCP – Sharad Pawar faction) from Sindkhed Raja, Subhash Dhote (Congress) from Rajura, and Santosh Singh Rawat (Congress) from Ballarpur. The petitioners have alleged serious procedural irregularities in the conduct of the recent Assembly elections.
Gold Rate
24 April 2025
Advocates Akash Moon and Pawan Dahat appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Petitioners Allege Electoral Irregularities
Advocate Akash Moon, representing the petitioners, argued that the election process suffered from several procedural lapses. The petitions challenge the electoral victories of Kayande, Mungantiwar, and Bhongade, alleging that the Election Commission failed to comply with mandatory legal requirements before conducting EVM-based polling.
According to the plea, no official notification was issued regarding the use of EVMs, and critical records—including CCTV footage and Form 17—were not provided to the candidates. The petitions also highlight the lack of VVPAT verification, raising concerns over electoral transparency.
Discrepancies in Vote Counts Highlighted
The petitions present detailed vote counts to substantiate their claims:
Rajendra Shingne received 68,763 votes, while opponent Manoj Kayande secured 73,413 votes.
Santosh Singh Rawat received 79,984 votes, compared to Sudhir Mungantiwar’s 1,05,969 votes. Notably, Rawat reportedly received more votes than Mungantiwar through postal ballots, yet the EVM count favored Mungantiwar.
Subhash Dhote garnered 69,828 votes, whereas Deorao Bhongade received 72,882 votes.
The petitioners had obtained Form 20 as part of the final election result documentation and had requested access to Forms 17C (Part 1 and Part 2) for all polling stations, along with full CCTV footage from the polling process. However, despite repeated requests, the information was not provided, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court issued its directive, requiring the three respondents to file their replies within three weeks.
