New Delhi, July 2: Pratibha Patil survived the returning officer’s scrutiny but Sanjay Tiwari Ujala and Manohar Lal Sharma are standing between her and the starting line.

Ujala and Sharma today filed separate petitions challenging Pratibha’s nomination for the election on a range of grounds — from her alleged insolvency that led to the closure of a bank she ran to the charge that she withheld information from the Election Commission.

The charges in the separate petitions are so identical that Ujala has accused Sharma of “plagiarism”.

Ujala filed two petitions before Delhi High Court. The first — a four-liner — seeks a judicial inquiry into various allegations levelled against her and reported in the media.

These include the allegation that a Jalgaon-based cooperative bank her family ran collected money from employees for the Kargil fund, but never transferred the cash to the government. The charge against Pratibha is one of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

The RBI subsequently withdrew the bank’s licence. Loans that the cooperative bank took from other banks have yet to be returned, Ujala’s petition claimed.

The second petition said Pratibha is the trustee of a body of colleges in Maharashtra, called the Shramsadhana Trust. Pratibha, therefore, holds an office other than a government one, making her ineligible for the post of President, Ujala has said.

The director of a recently registered NGO — Indraprastha People — Ujala’s antecedents aren’t well known. Attempts to ask him about his background are met with fierce resistance.

“Why do you ask me? You should be asking Pratibha Patil for her antecedents,” he said.

He has filed at least one petition against another person who was in the news — erstwhile Congress activist Sushil Sharma of the “tandoor murder” case.

Manohar Lal Sharma’s petition before the Supreme Court levels the same charges against Pratibha and will come up for hearing tomorrow.

Ujala has claimed Sharma has “plagiarised” his petitions “for publicity”. “He is doing this for publicity,” Ujala said. He plans to seek the dismissal of Sharma’s petition tomorrow.

Sharma, a senior advocate, said: “He (Ujala) doesn’t have the patent on the charges.”