This is an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (henceforth referred to as “RP Act” for the sake of brevity), challenging election of respondent No. 1 Sow. Kalpana Narhire, as a Member of Parliament, from Osmanabad (Maharashtra) Constituency No. 36 (S.C.), at the elections held in April, 2004, the result of which was declared on 13-05-2004.

By the election petition, petitioner has sought a declaration of election of respondent No. 1 to be void. He has also sought a declaration under section 101 of R.P. Act that he is duly elected candidate from the said Constituency, at the challenged election. In the alternative, petitioner prays for directions to hold fresh elections from the said Constituency.

For the sake of brevity, I am going to refer the Election Petitioner as "P", the elected candidate-respondent No.1 as "R1" and the two Notices as respectively. "N1" and “N2”, respectively.

2. In this matter, which was assigned to the undersigned after two predecessors recorded "not before me" and in which issues were already framed, recording of evidence was commenced on 21st July, 2006 with deposition of P examined in all 16 witnesses and closed the evidence by a purshis (Exh-78) on 07-02-2007. R1 has examined 10 witnesses including her deposition as RW5, between 26-02-2007 to 18-04-2007. The arguments were advanced and heard on 24th and 25th April, 2007 and also on 3rd and 4th May, 2007 under the belief that those were for final disposal of the election petition. Subsequently, all of us (the Court and the Lawyers) realized that the stage of disposal of election petition by final verdict with a reasoned judgement had not reached. During the course of his arguments, advocate for R1 referred to Sections 98 and 99 of the RP Act. Till then, neither of the lawyers had ever invited this Court to issue notices to S/Shri Dadasaheb Kshirsagar and Balasaheb Thackeray, although petition alleges these individuals to have indulged into "corrupt practice" as defined under Section 123(4) of the RP Act.

It is a peculiarity of this election petition that it does not allege the returned candidate R1 herself having indulged into commission of any corrupt practices, but third persons are alleged to have indulged into such practices in the interest of R1. Compliance of Section 99 and more particularly regarding notices as required by proviso (a), as also opportunity of cross examining the witnesses as required by proviso (b) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 99, was, therefore, inevitable.

Reliance was placed by learned counsel for upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Manohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and anr., 1996(1) SCC 169 : [1996(1) ALL MR 256 (S.C.)], although for some other purpose, in the said decision the Honourable the Apex Court has interpreted the purport of Sections 98 and 99 of the RP Act.

By referring to observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Manohar Joshi (supra) and more particularly as contained in paragraphs 54,55,57,58 and 59, learned counsel for R1 ended his arguments, by referring to Sections 98 and 99 of the RP Act and reminded this court that it will have to name the persons who will be held guilty of having indulged into corrupt practices and before doing so, this court will have to issue notices to them.

Observations in the matter of Moreshwar State Vs. Dwarkadas V. Pathrikar, 1996(1) SCC 394 : [1998(3) ALL MR 438 (S.C.)], guided us as regards the course to be adopted, in order to comply with requirement of Section 99 of the RP Act. Consequently, a lengthy order was delivered on 4.6.2007 which did not decide the election petition, but directed the noticees (Sarvashree Dadasaheb Kshirsagar and Balasaheb Thackeray), asking each of them to show cause as to why he should not be named as a person having been guilty of corrupt practice of the nature alleged in the petition. It was directed to be communicated to them that they will h