What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Samajwadi Party (SP) legislator Pallavi Patel, who defeated deputy chief minister Keshav Prasad Maurya in Sirathu segment in the last Assembly elections was seen misbehaving with members of the media on Saturday when they questioned her over allegations of hiding allegations of corruption while filing her nomination.
Pallavi Patel is accused of hiding information about the criminal case filed against her in the nomination papers for the election. Dilip Patel of Sirathu had made a complaint to the Election Commission on this. Taking cognizance of this, the EC had asked for an answer from her. Pallavi Patel had moved the Supreme Court against this. The court asked Pallavi Patel to answer the notice of the Election Commission. “We cannot interfere in the matter at this stage,” the court said.
When reporters sought her reaction to the Supreme Court ruling rejecting her plea that challenged a notice issued by the Election Commission over complaints that she hid her criminal cases against her in election filings, she pushed them and their media mikes-cameras away.
During a visit to her constituency Sirathu in Kaushambi district, Patel said: “I am here for an inspection. I’ll only respond to questions related to it.”
Patel has had a history of exhibiting entitlement in public space. Back in 2017 she forcibly occupied a flat in Lucknow after taking it on rent with her husband.
Recently, the Supreme Court rejected Pallavi’s petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision which authorised deputy election commissioner to issue show cause notice to Pallavi over the complaints, and if not found satisfactory, take penal action against her under the Representative of People Act, 1951.
The poll watchdog had issued her a notice to the SP legislator over a complaint seeking action against her based on allegations that she violated the EC mandate to disclose her personal information including pending criminal cases.
The complaints filed by Dilip Patel and Omkar Nath Gautam accused Patel of concealing information about two criminal cases of grabbing flats – one in Lucknow and another in Kanpur.
According to an FIR filed in 2017, owner Pankaj Tripathi said that he gave a room in his Gomti Nagar flat to Pankaj Singh to live as a caretaker of the flat while was away. “Later, I found out that a woman was living in the room with Singh. My family did not like his activities and I asked him to vacate the flat,” reads the FIR accessed by The New Indian.
Instead of moving out, Pallavi allegedly threatened Tripathi saying that her husband Pankaj Singh is a relative of late notorious robber and gangster Dadua and that she was a sister of sitting MP Anupriya Patel.
“She said that Pankaj is the owner of the flat. We are powerful and can frame you in fake cases. She told me that if I wanted to live, I should leave the flat,” the complainant said, adding that at least three people entered the room in the middle of their conversation, brandished guns and threw verbal slurs.
In May, 2017, when Tripathi lodged a complaint at the Gomti Nagar police station, the in charge officer allegedly refused to give a acknowledgement of the complaint and did not register it. He later approached the senior superintendent of police of Lucknow but nothing happened.
Meanwhile, Pallavi, her husband and their associates filed a complaint at the Gomti Nagar police station, showing that Tripathi had sold the flat to them. “The sale-purchase agreement was prepared using forged documents and signature of Tripathi,” according to the complaint.
Pallavi is the younger sister of Union minister of state for commerce and industry, Anupriya Patel, who is also the president of Apna Dal (Sonelal). While Anupriya’s party contested the last Assembly elections in alliance with BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), Pallavi decided to contest deputy CM Maurya from Sirathu and even emerged victorious.
In their complaints, Dilip Patel and Omkar Nath Gautam, both residents of Siradhu constituency, alleged that Pallavi infringed upon the right of the ordinary voter by not disclosing the criminal cases lodged against her in the affidavit appended with the nomination paper.
On the directions of the Election Commission, the sub-divisional district magistrate had carried out an enquiry into complaints against her. In response, Pallavi had challenged the notice in the Allahabad High Court, alleging breach of jurisdiction by the officer.
