High Court declares election of MLA Rahul Lodhi as void
   Date :09-Dec-2022

 Rahul Lodhi  
 
 
Legal Correspondent
Justice Nandita Dubey in an order on the election petition said that election to Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh 2018 of respondent Rahul Singh Lodhi from 47 Khargapur Assembly constituency is set aside and declared void.
As the election of respondent Rahul Singh Lodhi is being declared void, he therefore, must not be allowed any benefits of this election. For non-compliance and violation of the procedure and Rules, strict action must be taken against the Returning Officer and in future she must not be assigned any duty of similar nature. A copy of this order will be placed before the State the Election Commission and the Election Commission of India, Justice Dubey said.
The instant petition was filed by then Congress candidate Chanda Singh Gour challenging the election of Rahul Singh Lodhi from 47 Khargapur Assembly constituency.
According to the petitioner, the election of respondent is vitiated under the provisions of 100(1)(b) & (d)(i) and (iv) of the Act of 1951 and also for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules 1961 and therefore liable to be set aside and declared void.
According to the petitioner, the respondent has suppressed the fact in his nomination paper that the High Court had imposed a cost of Rs 10,000/- in another election petition (Rahul Singh Lodhi Vs. Chanda Singh Gour), and further not given the cost to the petitioner and thus guilty of non-compliance of the order of this court under the provisions of Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. The petitioner further alleged that respondent’s nomination
papers were improperly accepted, which has materially affected the result of the election. It is alleged that respondent submitted two nomination forms, with different information regarding his status as partner in the firm, M/s R S Constructions, Tikamgarh, having contract with MPRRDA, which amounts to corrupt practices as enumerated under Sections 100 (1) (b) & (d)(i) of the Act of 1951.