news details |
|
|
| SC dismisses PIL against Patil's nomination | | |
NEW DELHI, JUL 3 The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of nomination papers of UPA-left nominee Pratibha Patil for Presidential election, saying there was no sufficient document to substantiate allegations against her.
However, the Bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P K Balasubramanyan gave liberty to the petitioner Manohar Lal Sharma, an advocate, who had alleged irregularities by Patil and her family members in a cooperative bank and a sugar mill, to approach appropriate authorities for redressal of his grievances.
"This petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. We find no ground to interfere and exercise our jurisdiction. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from approaching appropriate authorities for redressal of his grievances," the Bench said.
After the dismissal of the petition, senior advocate and Congress spokesman Abhishekh Manu Singhvi, tried to impress upon the court saying that according to law such petitions cannot be entertained after the election process was set in motion.
However, the Bench shot back saying "who is responsible for this."
Senior law officers including Solicitor General G E Vahanvati and Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian were in agreement with Singhvi.
The PIL filed by Sharma had sought a direction against Patil continuing as the Presidential candidate alleging that she was an undischarged insolvent in a case relating to the Sant Muktai Sugar Factory set up by her at Jalgaon against which a loan of Rs 17.7 crore was due as on 1994 when she was a part of it.
The PIL contended that Patil comes under the ambit of serious offence of criminal breach of trust as the Pratibha Mahila Sahkari Bank belonging to her and her family members had collected Rs 4,556 (one-day salary) from 30 employees each for the Kargil war victims but allegedly embezzled the entire amount and did not deposit it with the national fund.
However, the court was not satisfied with the contention of the petitioner.
"We have perused the petition and its averments. There is no document to substantiate the allegations," the Bench said.
At the outset, the Bench told the advocate that he has made certain allegations without producing any material or documents.
"Can we proceed on your petition which is without any documents or materials," the Bench said and at one stage asked the advocate to withdraw the petition.
"At this stage there is no case that Patil is undischarged insolvent... Then where is the case for disqualification," the Bench said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
