Nirupam had claimed that Shetty had not disclosed information regarding a property owned by the latter and his wife in suburban Borivli in the nomination form and the affidavits.
Shetty had opposed the petition, and said provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 state only about disclosure of criminal cases, and that there is no provision in respect to disclosure of properties or consequences of the failure to disclose the same.
Shetty further claimed that the property in question was no more under his ownership as all the flats in the said building had been sold in 2010 itself.
Justice Mridula Bhatkar on Friday delivered a judgment in the petition and accepted Shetty's argument.
"I am of the view that in this petition, considering the facts and nature of the property, non-mentioning the said property in the nomination form and in the affidavit as an asset is not a substantive defect," the court said.
The court noted that section 33A of the Act makes it obligatory for candidates to disclose his or her criminal record, pending cases and if he or she has been convicted and the sentence therein.
"There is no such specific provision like section 33A in respect of disclosure of assets. It is mandatory on the part of the candidate to disclose the property and assets as per Form 96 prescribed under the Act," the order said.
However, there are no specific directions or special provisions like section 33A of the Act, the HC stated while dismissing the petition.
(With inputs from agencies.)