JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J. :—In both these appeals, the decision of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated April 20, 1991 in Election Petition No. 7 of 1990 is under challenge. The election petitioner Sri Bhaguji Nivrutti Satpute had questioned the election of the appellant in C. A. No. 2227 of 1991 Dr. (Mrs.) Vimal Nandkishor Mundada to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly from 201 Kaij (Scheduled caste) Constituency held in 1990 by filing a petition under the Representation of the People Act 1950 (1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Representation Act) before the Bombay High Court inter alia on the grounds that Sri Ere Maruti Nivrutti was a Lingayat by caste but he filed his nomination as Lingder, that Mangesh Pralhadrao Ranjankar the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2571 of 1991 Kalal by caste but he filed his nomination as Khatik, that appellant Dr. Vimal Mundada had although embraced Jainism after her marriage, but filed her nomination as Chambhar but canvassed for vote as Jain (Hindu) and Dr. Vimal also canvassed for votes on the ground of religion and promoted communal hatred between two classes of citizen and thereby committed corrupt practices under Section 123 of