Charandas son of Marotrao Ramleke vs Vilas Wishwanath Shrungarpawar and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(Bom) 397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.M. Qazi, J.
Charandas son of Marotrao Ramleke ... Petitioner.
Versus
Vilas Wishwanath Shrungarpawar and others .... Respondents.
Election Petition No. 4 of 1990, decided on 5-10-1990.
Advocates appeared :
M.L Vaidya and S.W. Dhabe, for the petitioner.
P.G. and S.P. Palshikar, S.V. Dharmadhikari and A.S. Jibhkate, for respondent No.1.
P.M. Gundawar, for respondent No. 27.

Headnote:Section 100 (1) (d) (i)-Election petition-Allegation-By acceptance of candidature of respondent No. 18 improperly as he was bolding office of profits, election of returned candidate was materially affected and hence liable to be set aside-Whether challenge to election of returned candidate has substance.
       Held-The fact that respondent No. 18 got only 4760 votes is sufficient to indicate that acceptance of his nomination cannot be said to have materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate. Hence there is no substance in the challenge.
       Sections 123 (3) and (3-A) and Section 100 (1) (b)-Election petition Petitioner alleging corrupt practice against returned candidate-He addressed gatherings and made communal propaganda-Charge of corrupt practice in election petition being of quasi-criminal character, onus no election petitioner is heavy as in a criminal charge-Such allegation to be established beyond reasonable doubt to satisfaction of Court.
       Held-Not established that return candidate delivered alleged inflammatory speeches sought to be characterized as communal. Election could not be set aside.

JUDGMENT - M.M. Qazi, J.:---The petitioner was a candidate for the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Election of Adyar Constituency No. 144 held on 27-2-1990 along with respondent Nos. 1 to 26. The respondent No. 27 was the Returning Officer of the said election. The polling of the said constituency was over on 27-2-1990 at 5-00 P.M. Counting of votes started on 1-3-1990 at 8-00 A.M. and completed on 2-3-1990 at about 8-00 A.M. Immediately after result was announced and the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the returned candidate') was declared elected.

Total number of votes polled was .. 1,03,226

near about 71.5%

Total number of votes found in favour of .. 28,091

the returned candidate

Total number of votes found in favour of .. 20,521

the petitioner.

The petitioner contested the election on the ticket of the Republican Party of India (Khobragade) an his symbol was HORSE while the returned candidate Vilas Vishwanath Shrangarpawar contested the election as an independent candidate and his symbol was MASHAL (Torch).

2. According to the petitioner, through the returned candidate contested the election as an independent candidate, his propoganda was as if he was an official candidate of the Indian National Congress (1) and thereby he tried directly or indirectly to interfere or attempted to interfere with free exercise of the electoral right. This propoganda, according to him, amounted to corrupt practice under section 123(3) and (3-A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, his election is liable to be set aside and declared to 'be void under section 100(1)(b) of the said Act. According to the petitioner, the Indian National Congress (I) did not set up any candidate in this election on their behalf but supported respondent No. 12 Laxmanrao Shrawan Tirpude, who was a candidate of the Republican party of India of Ramdas Athawale. In short, his contention is that there was an alliance between the Indian National Congress (I) and the Republican Party of India of Ramdas Athawale in this election. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate printed posters with the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi - the Ex Prime Minister and Ex President of the Indian National Congress (I), and that these posters were pasted at the prominent places throughout the constituency.

3. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate addressed small gatherings of about 15 to 20 persons essentially consisting of this workers and voters at different places in the constituency and told them that several Hindu candidates were contesting the election, consequently their votes would be divided and the petitioner, who is a Mahar, would be elected. He exhorted them if they would tolerate a Mahar and whether they would like to go to him for their work. He also alleged to have said that if the petitioner was elected, Adyar constituency would be a reserved constituency for Scheduled Castes for 15 to 20 years.

4 The petitioner was informed of the above communal propoganda by persons who heard it. They also gave it in writing in the form of an affidavit to the petitioner. However, the affidavits are not sworn. According to the petitioner, this amounted to corrupt practice under section 123(3) and (3-A) of the Act and as such his election is liable to be set aside and declared to the void and further he is liable to be disqualified for corrupt practice under section 100(1)(b) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate, his agents and other persons with his consent had appealed to the voters of the constituency in the name of religion, viz, Hindu religion, to which the returned candidate belongs, for voting in his favour and to which the returned candidate belongs, for voting in his favour and to refrain from voting in favour of Mahar candidate, viz, the petitioner.

5. It was further contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 18 Raghunath Hari Bramhankar w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document