Thursday, Nov 22, 2018 | Last Update : 01:44 AM IST
The elections were held on October 15, 2014, and the results were announced on October 19.
Nagpur: In a major jolt to the state BJP in general and Sakoli MLA Rajesh alias Bala Kashiwar in particular, a Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has set aside his election as a Member of the legislative Assembly (MLA) on grounds that on the date of filing nominations, he continued to be a government contractor, contrary to the provisions of the Representation of People’s Act.
The elections were held on October 15, 2014, and the results were announced on October 19. Justice Atul Chandurkar, while allowing the election petition filed by Congress candidate Sewak Waghaye who lost the 2014 Asse-mbly elections to BJP, held that Kashiwar had requested that his registration be cancelled on October 20, 2014, mu-ch after September 27, 2014 which was the
last date for filing nominations.
This request was accepted by the public works department (PW-D) on October 22 and documents on record proved that as on the date of filing nomination, Kashiwar was a registered government contractor with the department with subsisting contractual liability and hence, was not eligible to contest the state Assembly elections. The observation was made by the Judge while rejecting Kashiw-ar’s contention that there was no subsisting contract. Waghaye had approached the HC seeking disqualification of Kashiwar on grounds that he was a government contractor, and had produced a list of contracts executed by him.
Kashiwar was registered as a class 4 contractor with the PWD and was executing various construction works including construction of the enclosure for tiger cubs in compartment number 543 of the east Pench range in the Pench Tiger Reserve in Ramtek tehsil.
Kashiwar said the works were over much before he decided to contest the polls and denied any suppression of facts in his election affidavit. The court, however, held that thou-gh the work was complete, the liability cla-use was applicable and the security deposit had not been returned to him by the PWD, which meant that he had not been absolved as a contractor and continued as such during the liability period.