JUDGMENT - 1. This is another election appeal. It relates to the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from constituency No. 164 of Khamgaon, including Khamgaon town.

2. The following dates out of the programme announced for the election are material for our purposes:

(1) The last date for filing of nominations was ... 20th January 1962

(ii) The scrutiny of nominations was to take place on ... 22nd January 1962

(iii) The date on which the poll was to be taken was ... 22nd February 1962

(iv) Counting took place on ... 26th and 27th February 1962.

(v) The result was declared on 27th February 1962. At all material times during the process of election the Returning Officer and the Election Officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were one and the sama person. Mr. M. B. Lawale.

3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 6 to this appeal were candidates for election and the respondents 7, 8 and 9 had filed nomination papers for election but their nominations came to be rejected and several of the grounds taken in the election petition pertain to the rejection of these nominations. As to the candidates who stood for election the number of votes obtained by each were as under:--

As a result of the poll, the respondent No. 1 Govinddas Ratanlal Bhatia was declared elected, and the petition out of which the present appeal arises challenged his election.

4. The election petition was presented by the two appellants Namdeo Chimnaji Tapre and Namdeo Wakujl Araj. They claimed to be electors within the meaning of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act. They alleged several grounds on which they claimed that the election of the first respondent ought to be declared void. The principal ground was that the nomination papers of the respondents 7 to 9 which had been rejected by the Returning Officer were improperly rejected and the election was consequently liable to be set aside under Section 100 of the Act. The second ground was that there were several contracts entered into with the Stale Government by the respondent No. 1 in the course of his business. One such contract was for the supply of printed lists of voters for this same election. The other contract was for providing transport for under-trial prisoners and/or convicts between Buldana jail and other places in the district. According to the petitioners, the subsistence of these contracts worked a disqualification under Section 7(d) of the Act disentitling the respondent No. 1 from standing.

5. The first respondent raised a number of pleas in answer and he denied the fact that he was the owner of the particular press known as "Dinkar Mudranalaya" of Khamgaon, in which the voting lists were printed. Ac-cording to the petitioner, he was a partner along with several other persons. In connection with the second objection, the respondent No. 1s stand was that the rejection of the nominations of the respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 was proper. The respondent No. 7 did not put in appearance and was throughout ex parte. The respondents Nos. 8 and 9 filed their written statements but it does not appear that thereafter they took part in the trial of the election petition.

6. Now, it is unnecessary here to state the respective pleadings of the parties upon all the issues which were framed by the Election Tribunal, because after some arguments Mr. Manohar on behalf of the appellants has with discrimination confined himself to the two important grounds which we have referred to.

7. The first ground argued is as to the rejection of the nomination paper of the respondent No. 8 by the Returning Officer Mr. Lawale. It is not in dispute that the nomination paper of the respondent No. 8 Bhiku Ambuji Shegaonkar was presented by the candidate in person on 19th January 1962. There is a dispute as to what happened on the date of presentation and as to whether the Returning Officer at all scrutinized the nomination paper or asked him to appear on a subsequent day, but it is clear that he passed a writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document