Mumbai: The Election Returning Officer (ERO) of Nagpur South-West assembly constituency on Saturday rejected the complaint filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate Amol Hadke and lawyer Adv Satish Uike demanding the Election Commission of India (ECI) reject the nomination papers filed by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis as the Notary seal was date barred. Rejecting the complaint the ERO termed the poll affidavit submitted yesterday by Fadnavis as valid and stated that the same has been accepted.
Meanwhile, Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) spokesperson Sachin Sawant fired yet another salvo at the Chief Minister. In a letter addressed to the ECI, the MPCC spokesperson has demanded that the poll body should direct the authorities to remove all government advertisements carrying the photograph of the Chief Minister, terming it as a violation of the Model Code of Conduct. It may be recalled that on September 23 late last month, Sawant had objected to the posters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at petrol pumps as the model code of conduct had come into effect, demanding that the poll body should direct authorities to remove them.
The Congress and the AAP had objected to the election affidavit filed by sitting Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis arguing that the notarized seal was date barred and hence should be rejected. They had argued that the notary seal of notary V P Sontakey states that his license was valid till December 28, 2018. However, another seal bears the date of registration to be October 3, 2019. Citing discrepancy the Congress and AAP had demanded that the poll affidavit of Fadnavis be rejected.
The ERO in his two page ruling observed that the election representative of Fadnavis, Sandip Joshi had produced the business certificate of notary V P Sontakey which states that his notary license has been extended for another five years from the date of December 28, 2018. The ERO also rejected the objections of AAP candidate to the No Dues certificate relating to declaration of no dues regarding government accommodation availed by Fadnavis. The ERO ruled that the No Dues certificate furnished by Fadnavis has been issued by the relevant competent authority. The ERO further observed that since the affidavit has been notarized and is valid, he was rejecting the complaint and accepting the affidavit of Fadnavis.
