JUDGMENT

P.B.SAWANT, J.

(1) THESE two petitions arise out of a common order dated 29/10/1990 passed by the Bombay High court in Election Petition No. 5 of 1990 and raise a common question of law. Hence they are disposed of by this judgment.

(2) LEAVE is granted in both the petitions.

(3) THE election petition in which the impugned order is passed was filed by a defeated candidate (respondent 1 against the elected candidate (respondent 2 and other contesting candidates challenging the validity of the election of respondent 2 to the Lok Sabha from the Bombay South central Constituency in the election held on 24/11/1989. The election of respondent 2 is challenged in the petition, among other things, on the ground of corrupt practices under Ss. (2, (3 and (3-A) of S. 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It appears from the impugned order that the High court has reached a stage in the trial of the election petition where examination-in-chief and cross-examination of about 14 witnesses has been completed and various documents have been brought on record. It is at this stage that the impugned order has been made, the operative part of which reads as follows:

"IN this election petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the election of respondent 1 on the ground of corrupt practice under S. 123(3 and 123(3-A) of the said Act. The petitioner has led documentary and oral evidence. Respondent 1 has tendered documents but has led no oral evidence. The other respondents have remained absent even though served. Petitioner and respondent 1 have argued their respective cases. The learned Advocate General has also drawn my attention to S. 99 of the said Act which requires this court, whilst giving a finding that corrupt practice has been proved, to name all persons who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice and the nature of that practice. This however must be after having given to such person/s notice to appear and show cause why he/they should not be so named.

AT this stage, I am of the prima facie opinion that the charges alleged in the petition of corrupt practices under S. 123(3 and 123(3-A) of the said Act have been proved to have been committed and that Mr Bal Thackeray, Mr Chhagan Bhujbal and Mr Manohar Joshi are (to use the words of Supreme court) collaborators in such corrupt practice.

ACCORDINGLY, 1 direct that notices under S. 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, shall be given to Mr Bal Thackeray, Mr Chhagan Bhujbal and Mr Manohar Joshi to appear before me on 3/12/1990, to show cause why they should not be so named in the order on the election petition.

EACH notice shall state that the person named in the notice shall have an opportunity of cross-examining all witnesses who have given evidence against him and that he shall have a right of calling evidence and of being heard.

I direct that to all the notices shall be annexed photo copies of:

(A) the petition, the written statement of respondent I, and the issues.

(B) the oral depositions of the petitioners witnesses.

(C) all exhibits, except Exs. RR, SS to YY, AAA, AAA1, AAAA, BBBB, BBBB1 and Exs. 1 to 8.

(D) this order.

I also direct that along with all the notices shall be sent audio cassettes containing copies of Exs. SS to YY."

Aggrieved by this order, two of the persons named therein, viz., Manohar Joshi and Chhagan Bhujbal have approached this court by way of these two separate appeals by special leave.

(4) THE order is assailed on the ground that although it directs the issuance of notice to the appellants to answer allegations of corrupt practices allegedly committed by them, it is vague and does not indicate which of the corrupt practices they are alleged to have committed and which evidence on record supports them. In the absence of the specific charge/s and the evidence in support of it/them indicated