Union Minister and BJP candidate in Thiruvananthapuram for Lok Sabha elections Rajeev Chandrasekhar (file).
| Photo Credit: PTI
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on April 23 dismissed a writ petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Avani Bansal and one other particular person from Bengaluru looking for a directive to the district electoral officer to move a reasoned order on their grievance alleging that Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Union Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate within the Thiruvananthapuram Lok Sabha constituency in Kerala, has filed a false affidavit about his assets and income alongside along with his nomination papers.
The Bench comprising Justice V.G. Arun and Justice S. Manu, whereas dismissing the petition, noticed that “the question as to whether the returning officer should have passed a reasoned order cannot be decided at this point of time and no direction can be issued to him to communicate reasons for the decision on the complaint at this point of time.”
“The remedy of the petitioners, if aggrieved by the acceptance of the affidavit filed by one of the candidates, is to challenge the same in an election petition,” the courtroom added.
In the petition, the Congress chief and Ranjith Thomas of Bengaluru alleged that Mr. Chandrasekhar had omitted to say a big variety of assets in his asset declaration, together with properties corresponding to his home, luxurious automobiles and non-public jets which he owned.
Besides, he had didn’t declare the actual guide worth of the businesses as mandated by the Election Commission of India. The guide worth of the 4 holding firms proven within the affidavit is ₹6.38 crore, whereas it’s ₹1,610.53 crore in accordance with the filings made by these firms with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Therefore, the declaration of assets by the BJP candidate was inaccurate, the petition stated.
The petitioners stated they received a communication from the electoral officer that their grievance had been forwarded to the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Thiruvananthapuram, for essential motion. By intentionally delaying to take a name on their grievance, the district electoral officer had precipitated substantial prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners pleaded that the returning officer be referred to as upon to state the explanations as to why no determination had been taken.