Rahul Lodhi, nephew of former chief minister and BJP leader Uma Bharti, has been stripped of his legislative office. The High Court has ordered to nullify the election of BJP MLA Rahul Singh Lodhi from Khargapur Assembly in Tikamgarh district. Chanda Singh Gaur, the defeated candidate against the MLA, alleged in the petition that Rahul Lodhi has a partnership with a private contracting company contracted by the government. He has hidden this information. While giving the verdict on the petition of Chanda Singh Gaur in the High Court, Rahul Singh Lodhi has been ordered to stop the MLA related benefits.
A single bench of Justice Nandita Dubey of Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered to nullify the election of Rahul Singh Lodhi, MLA of Khargapur assembly constituency under Tikamgarh district. Instructions have also been given to send a copy of the order to the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India. With the commencement of the elections, there is also an order to stop all the benefits related to the MLA being given to Lodhi.
Because of this the High Court stopped the MLA benefits
A complaint has been lodged on behalf of Chanda Singh Gaur, who lost the election from Khargapur constituency on a Congress ticket, for accepting the nomination papers of the BJP MLA against the rules. Apart from this, it was said in the petition that Rahul Lodhi also has a partnership in a private contracting company contracted by the government. He has hidden this information in the nomination papers. The High Court had imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 on Lodhi. It has also not been paid to Chanda Singh on behalf of Lodhi.
The lawyer gave this argument
Justice Nandita Dubey of the High Court, after listening to all the arguments, in her order has made strong remarks about the approval of the nomination by going beyond the purview of the rules of the Returning Officer Vandana Rajput. Advocate Seshamani Mishra, on behalf of petitioner Chanda Singh Gwar, had said in the election petition that Lodhi had filed an election petition against her when she was first elected as an MLA. It was canceled with a fine of Rs 20,000. Following the order of the High Court, Lodhi had to give this amount to Gaur. But he didn’t do that. This attitude comes under the ambit of violation of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. In this case the election should be cancelled. Apart from this, two nomination papers were also submitted, in which mutually contradictory information was given. Along with this, a mistake was made of hiding the information of partnership from the contracting company.
