EC rejects AAP MLAs' plea on 'second petition'

It also fixed September 23 as the next date of hearing. On August 29, it had reserved its order on the plea of AAP MLAs to reject the so-called second petition.

Published: 16th September 2016 09:48 PM  |   Last Updated: 16th September 2016 09:48 PM   |  A+A-

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Election Commission today refused to entertain fresh allegations in a petition seeking disqualification of 21 AAP MLAs for allegedly holding office of profit even as it rejected the plea of the lawmakers not to take cognisance of the so-called second application filed in the case.

It also fixed September 23 as the next date of hearing. On August 29, it had reserved its order on the plea of AAP MLAs to reject the so-called second petition.

The Commission, in its order said, "the contents of paras...make some extraneous/additional allegations and insinuations. Accordingly, these paragraphs are directed to be struck off from the reply dated December 28, 20l5 (the so-called second petition) of the petitioner."

In other words, the Commission refused to expand the scope of the original petition by not agreeing to include "additional allegations" filed through the second petition.

The first petition was filed by advocate Prashant Patel before the President on June 19, 2015 seeking disqualification of the 21 AAP lawmakers for allegedly holding office of profit. He had filed additional documents as sought by the EC.

But AAP had claimed that additional documents in effect were a second petition which should not be entertained.

But at the same time, the Commission also rejected the plea of the MLAs that the so-called second petition by Patel was not maintainable as it was not sent to the President like the first petition but filed before the poll body.

"None of the learned counsel for the respondents have raised any specific objection that even paras 1 and 2 of the petitioner's reply dated December 28, 2015 can also not be looked into by the Commission. These two paras are mere reiteration of the question raised by the petitioner in his original petition.

"In the Commission's view, there also cannot be any valid objection to the contents of paras...as all these paragraphs relate to the question raised by the petitioner in his original petition," the Commission said in its 18-page order.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.