Justice FI Rebello, in his order, noted that Gidwani who a former Congressman had failed to make out a case. However, Gidwani has decided to challenge the high court judgement in the Supreme Court.

Gidwani had challenged the election of Mehta on the ground that the ten Congress legislators from the state assembly who had signed his nomination were not aware that they were proposing his candidature because they had endorsed blank forms.

Gidwani's advocate had told the court that in case a candidate who is not not sponsored by a recognised political party, the nomination paper is required to be "subscribed by ten legislators'' while in case of a party candidate, the nomination paper isrequired to be signed and not subscribed by one legislator.

The petitioner said that when the nomination papers were signed by ten legislators, they were blank and thus these legislators did not know that they were proposing the name of Mehta. He also submitted that while subscribing, the ten legislators had signed the nomination papers as proposers nominating a definite person as a candidate.

Since the ten legislators did not know for whom they were signing the nomination form, the nomination can not be called as subscribed, he argued. The court however, rejected his argument and consequently the petition.Gidwani had contended that it was not possible to find out in whose favour all the votes would have gone if Mehta was not in the fray.

He argued that the election of all the ten members of state councils including Mehta were liable to be set aside because of preferential voting. The list of 10 council members include Pratapsinh Mohite Patil, NS Pharande, Vijay Girkar, Diwakar Raote, Vijay Warattiwar,Ranjit Deshmukh, Makhram Paar, Vasant Chavan, Gangadhar Patni besides Mehta.

The judge opined that such a grievance could have been raised before the returning officer but it was not done. Nevertheless, the court had gone into this aspect. He ruled that the nominations forms signed by the Congress legislators were valid. The court, however, rejected the contention of the respondents that the petition was barred by the law of limitation. It was argued that the election was held on June 19 last year and the petition was filed on August 3 last. (in accordance with law, such a petition should be filed within 45 days).