Uddhav Thackeray moves Delhi HC challenging single judge's order on party name, symbol freeze
Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray approached the Delhi High Court on Tuesday against its single-judge bench order rejecting his plea against Election Commission's decision to freeze Shiv Sena's name and bow and arrow symbol.
New Delhi, Dec 13 (IANS) Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray approached the Delhi High Court on Tuesday against its single-judge bench order rejecting his plea against Election Commission's decision to freeze Shiv Sena's name and bow and arrow symbol.
Justice Sanjeev Narula had dismissed Thackeray's petition on November 15, holding that there was no interdiction by the Supreme Court regarding the proceedings to be conducted by the EC.
On October 8, the EC had directed both Thackeray and Eknath Shinde to restrain from using the same name or symbol till the official recognition is finally decided.
They were alloted different symbols for the recent Andheri East bypoll.
Thackeray has appealed that EC has assumed that there are two factions of Shiv Sena party while passing the freezing order.
Moreover, he has claimed that it cannot be said that there are two factions in the party as he remains "rightfully elected President", which was admitted even by Shinde.
"The observation of the Ld. Single Judge that both the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 claim to be the President of the original Shiv Sena party is factually incorrect, as the Respondent No. 2 in para 3 of his para 15 petition filed before Respondent No. 1 himself states that the Appellant herein is, and continues to be the Shivsena Pramukh (President/Pramukh) of the Shiv Sena Political Party," the appeal stated.
He stated that the EC has exercised its jurisdiction without taking note of the disqualification proceedings pending before the top court against Shinde.
"Single-judge failed to appreciate that the question of disqualification of Respondent No. 2 (Shinde) is still pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the action of Respondent No 1 (ECI) is premised on an underlying assumption that the Hon'ble Supreme Court will decide in favour of Respondent No. 2."