New Delhi, Feb 7 : The Delhi High Court on Friday adjourned, till March 2, a petition filed against Karol Bagh constituency's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate, Vishesh Ravi, alleging foul play in the election affidavit he submitted to the Election Commission.
A division bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C. Harishankar adjourned the matter after the AAP leader sought more time to file reply on the plea.
The court had on Thursday issued notice to the Election Commission over the petition filed by Yogendra Chandolia, the BJP candidate from the same seat in the Saturday assembly poll.
In this plea filed days before polling, Chandolia accused Ravi of concealing important facts regarding his educational qualification in the election affidavit.
The plea challenges a single Judge bench order of the court, which had held that the petition is not maintainable at this stage, and such a challenge cannot be done through a writ under the Constitution's Article 226 and is only possible through an election petition which can only be filed after the declaration of the results.
"... in said affidavit in column 10, it has been stated by the respondent no. 4 that his maximum education qualification is Matric 10th Passed from the National School of Open Schooling (2003). However, in the affidavit filed by respondent no.4 in the year 2013, he has sworn in affidavit that his education qualification is B. Com (2008) from the Choudhary Charan Singh University, and for the year 2015; in the affidavit filed by him he has sworn that his education qualification is pursuing BA (Programming) in the IGNOU (Delhi) University," the plea said.
Chandolia also contended that Ravi fully and intentionally concealed the pending criminal case against him.
"It is submitted that a Criminal miscellaneous case No. 5283 of 2018 titled R.K. Sharma Vs State & Ors. pertaining to section 385, 387, 506 and 120 B IPC is pending adjudication before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein the notice has been served to respondent no. 4 and that too respondent's no. 4 counsel has appeared before the Court on dated 14.03.2019," the plea submitted.
"However, in the affidavit (Form 26), which contains a column of pending cases, the respondent no. 4 has stated the same as not applicable in much as no criminal case is pending against him."