The Court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on preliminary objections under section 86 of the Act for breach of section 81(3) of the said Act. The Court also held that the petition was liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for want of cause of action relating to any ground on which the election of respondent No. 1 can be set aside under the provisions of the Act.

Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - [SECTION 100(1)(B), 100(1)(D)(II) AND 100(1)(D)(IV) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951] - CORRUPT PRACTICES - [SECTION 123(3), (4) AND (7) OF THE ACT] - CANDIDATE AND/OR HIS ELECTION AGENTS AND/OR OTHER PERSONS WITH CONSENT OF CANDIDATE OR HIS ELECTION AGENT COMMITTED CORRUPT PRACTICES - DISPLAY OF BOARD WITH FALSE CONTENT TO CREATE HATRED AGAINST PETITIONER - DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS WITH FALSE CONTENT - ASSISTANCE RENDERED BY GOVERNMENT SERVANT - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS - [SECTION 81(3), 83(1)(C) AND 86 OF THE ACT] - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 81(3) - DEFECTIVE VERIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT - NON-DISCLOSURE OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION - MATERIAL FACTS AND PARTICULARS NOT PLEADED - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party (B.J.P.), contested the election from Khatav Constituency against respondent No. 1, a candidate of Nationalist Congress Party (N.C.P.). The election was held on 11th September, 1999 and the results were declared on 7th October, 1999. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected. Petitioner filed an election petition seeking to set aside the election of respondent No. 1 on the grounds that respondent No. 1 and/or his election agents and/or other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 or his election agent have committed various corrupt practices in the course of canvassing during the election and at all stages of election in the Khatav Assembly Constituency and outside the constituency. The respondent No. 1, his election agent or other persons or agents with the consent of respondent No. 1 or his election agent have committed corrupt practices as mentioned in section 123(3), (4) and (7) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on preliminary objections under section 86 of the Act for breach of section 81(3) of the said Act. The Court also held that the petition was liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for want of cause of action relating to any ground on which the election of respondent No. 1 can be set aside under the provisions of the Act. The Court further held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent No. 1and/or his agent and/or any other person with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agent have published a statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct or in relation to the candidature of the respondent, being a statement calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election as alleged in para 5 of the petition. The Court also held that the petitioner had failed to prove that result of the election in so far as it concern the respondent has been materially affected by noncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Representation of People Act and/or the Rules or Order made under the Representation of People Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed under section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for breach of section 81(3) of the said Act. 2. Whether the election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed, under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for want of cause of action relating to any ground on which the election of respondent No. 1 can be set aside under the provisions of the Act. 3. Does the petitioner proves that the respondent No. 1and/or his agent and/or other persons with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agent have created and/or tried to create hatred in the minds of the voters on the ground of religion which has influenced the voters to vote against the petitioner. 4. Whether the petitioner and/or his agent have obtained or procured or abetted assistance (other than for giving vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of the respondents election from a person in the service of the Government. 5. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent and/or his election agent and/or any other person with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agent have published a statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct or in relation to the candidature of the respondent, being a statement calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election as alleged in para 5 of the petition. 6. Whether the petitioner proves that result of the election in so far as it concern the respondent has been materially affected by noncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Representation of People Act and/or the Rules or Order made under the Representation of People Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on preliminary objections under section 86 of the Act for breach of section 81(3) of the said Act. The Court also held that the petition was liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for want of cause of action relating to any ground on which the election of respondent No. 1 can be set aside under the provisions of the Act. The Court further held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent No. 1and/or his agent and/or any other person with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agent have published a statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct or in relation to the candidature of the respondent, being a statement calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election as alleged in para 5 of the petition. The Court also held that the petitioner had failed to prove that result of the election in so far as it concern the respondent has been materially affected by noncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Representation of People Act and/or the Rules or Order made under the Representation of People Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---In this election petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 under section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", on the grounds that respondent No. 1 and/or his election agents and/or other persons with consent of respondent No. 1 or his election agent have committed various corrupt practices in the course of canvassing during the election and at all stages of election in the Khatav Assembly Constituency and outside the constituency. The respondent No. 1, his election agent or other persons or agents with the consent of respondent No. 1 or his election agent have committed corrupt practices as mentioned in section 123(3), (4) and (7) of the Act.

2.In the concise statement of facts it is stated that the petitioner has contested the election on Lotus Symbol from Khatav Constituency as a candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party, hereinafter referred to as "B.J.P.", respondent No. 1 was a candidate of Nationalist Congress Party, hereinafter referred to as "N.C.P." and contested the election on the symbol of clock. The elections were held on 11th September, 1999. The counting took place on 6th October, 1999 and the results were declared on 7th October, 1999. The total valid votes polled were 106485 and 7703 votes were invalid and rejected accordingly. The first respondent secured 42813 votes and was declared elected. In the night intervening 10th and 11th September, 1999 one Sharad Leve expired due to the injuries cause to him at the tunnel on Satara Sajjangad Road. A complaint was lodged against one Udayanraje Bhosale, who was contesting the elections in Satara constituency as a candidate of B.J.P. involving him in the offence of murder of Sharad Leve. The first respondent, his workers, agents, supporters and Leaders B.J.P. appealed to the voters in diverse manner by asking for votes in his favour. A board was displayed in villages Mayani, Katar Khatav and Vaduj with the intention to create hatred against the petitioner so that the voters shall get influenced with wrong propaganda. The board which was exhibited was written in Marathi script. The translation of the board is as follows :

"Candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party has murdered Councilor. Do not vote for murderer party. Do not vote for a party which fields as candidate who is murderers. Vote for Nationalist Congress Party, symbol : Clock."

In paragraph 4(e) it is stated that the board was displayed at the instance of first respondent and in the presence of his agent. The name of the agent are mentioned. It is stated that one Shri Himmat Govind Mane, Dr, Makarand Ramchandra Toro, Mahendra Basveshwar Gudage, Ramchandra Vishnu Somade and Baburao Narayan Somade has personally seen the agent displaying the board. It is further stated that such boards were displayed in the entire constituency with the full knowledge of the first respondent/his election agent/and/or other supporters with the full knowledge that the contents were false but sufficient enough to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner's chances of winning the election. In paragraph 4(f) it is stated that the first respondent, his election agent and/or other supporters also circulated pamphlets in the villages mentioned above. Photo copies of the pamphlets were distributed in the entire Khatav constituency and especially on large scale, in the village Mayani, Katar Khatav and Vaduj. The petitioner has considerable support from these three villages and, therefore, the pamphlets were purposely distributed in large scale in these villages. The pamphlet contain the following content,

"Candidate of Bharatiya Janata party Udayanraje Bhosale has murdered Councilor Appa Leve at about 1.30 a.m. by sword. Murderers assault on Ex-Vice President Shri Chandrakant Jadhav. People of Satara should think over it."

These pamphlets were signed by Abhaysinh Raje Bhosale. The contents of this pamphl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2000 Supreme(Bom) 314

Cases Referred (10)

Judicial Analysis