The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the 2024 victory of Sindri MLA Chandradeo Mahato, bringing an early end to a closely watched political dispute from Dhanbad district. The court not only rejected the plea at the threshold but also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for filing what it termed an election case based on vague and unfounded claims .
The matter was heard and decided by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary at the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
Background of the Case
The election petition was filed by Hiralal Sankhwar, also known as Hiralal Mahato, who had contested the 2024 Jharkhand Assembly elections from the Sindri constituency as a candidate of the All India Forward Bloc.
He challenged the election of Chandradeo Mahato, the returned candidate from CPI (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation, who won the seat with 1,05,136 votes. The runner-up, the BJP candidate, secured 1,01,688 votes, while the petitioner polled only 737 votes.
The petition sought to declare the election void under various provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Key Allegations Raised
The petitioner raised multiple objections to the respondent’s election, including:
- The security deposit of ₹10,000 was allegedly deposited with the court Nazir instead of the Returning Officer or government treasury.
- Nomination affidavits allegedly lacked Advocate Welfare Fund and Clerk stamps and included photocopies.
- Election pamphlets described the candidate as CPI (ML) without the word “Liberation,” allegedly misleading voters.
- A newspaper publication allegedly gave incorrect information about criminal convictions.
Respondent’s Objection
The returned candidate filed an interlocutory application seeking rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act.
Senior counsel for the respondent argued that the petition failed to disclose any real cause of action and did not meet the mandatory pleading standards under election law. It was also pointed out that one of the allegations - regarding a criminal conviction - was demonstrably false, as the respondent was not even an accused in the cited case.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Membership Rights in Mumbai Housing Society Dispute Over Peddar Road Flat
Court’s Observations
The High Court reiterated that an election petition is a serious legal proceeding and cannot be based on assumptions or technical trivialities.
“The court is required to see whether the pleadings disclose material facts that would justify a trial,” the bench observed, adding that even a single missing material fact can render the petition liable for rejection.
On the security deposit issue, the court noted that the money had indeed been deposited and the dispute was only about the mode, which did not go to the root of the election.
Regarding missing stamps on affidavits, the court held that any lapse by the notary could not be blamed on the candidate.
The bench was particularly critical of the allegation relating to criminal conviction. After examining the certified judgment, the court found that the respondent was not even named as an accused.
“The statement made in the election petition is ex-facie false,” the court said, holding that such a false averment itself was sufficient ground to dismiss the case.
Decision
Concluding that the pleadings were “sketchy” and failed to disclose any legally sustainable ground, the High Court allowed the application for rejection of the plaint.
The election petition was dismissed at the threshold, and a cost of ₹50,000 was imposed on the petitioner. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato vs Chandradeo Mahato
Case No.: Election Petition No. 01 of 2025
Decision Date: 03 February 2026
