Important Point: Even if the statement is false and the candidate did not believe the statement to be true or believe it to be false, unless the statement is in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate, it is not a corrupt practice.

ORDER BELOW EXH. 10 [E.P. APPLN. NO. 32/2016] IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 15/2014

1. The application is filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.' for short) for rejection of petition. Both the sides are heard.

2. In the election petition, the election to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 243- Paranda Assembly Constituency, District Osmanabad, in which respondent No. 1 is declared as elected candidate, is under challenge. Declaration is claimed that respondent No. 1 indulged in corrupt practice like making false representation to the people that the petitioner, who was candidate of Congress I Party, was dummy candidate of political party Shivsena. It is contended in the petition that main candidates amongst whom there was contest, were candidates of Congress I Party, Nationalist Congress Party (N.C.P.) and Shivsena Party. Respondent No. 1, who is elected candidate, contested the election as a candidate of N.C.P. and respondent No. 2 contested the election as a candidate of Shivsena Party. Allegations are made that during the election campaign, wrong message, rumour was spread both by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that petitioner was dummy candidate of Shivsena Party. It is contended that in one election meeting dated 6.10.2014, respondent No. 1, during his address to large gathering at Paranda, District Osmanabad, in the presence of the then Deputy Chief Minister of the State Shri. Ajit Pawar, said that the present petitioner is a dummy candidate of Shivsena Party and if votes are given to the petitioner, then there will be division of secular votes, which will help the candidate, to whom secular votes may not go. It is contended that video recording of this speech of respondent No. 1 was done at the instance of Returning Officer and the petitioner has obtained D.V.D. of the said recording. It is contended that on 13.10.2014, respondent No. 2 also spread a wrong message that only due to intervention of respondent No.2, the petitioner was given ticket of Congress Party. There are some other contentions made against respondent No. 2 that he had made some religious speech by taking the name of colour and ultimately, in the speech, he had said that there was support of Jahed Choudhary, brother of petitioner, to him. It is the case of petitioner that due to such information spread by respondent No. 2 among the voters, the voters did not give votes to him and this conduct of respondent No. 2 amounts to corrupt practice.

3. Respondent No. 1, the elected candidate, secured 78548 votes, respondent No. 2, the candidate of Shivsena got 66159 votes and present petitioner, who was candidate of Congress I Party, got only 7760 votes. Respondent No. 3 - Balasaheb Bhagwatrao Patil, who was the candidate of Rashtriya Samaj Party, secured 37324 votes.

4. In the present application, it is contended for respondent No. 1, the elected candidate that no cause of action for election petition is shown and material particulars are not provided and no material is produced along with the petition and so, the petition is liable to be rejected under provision of Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, both of them have denied the aforesaid allegations made against them by the petitioner.

5. During arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the Returned candidate, for respondent No. 1 submitted that the petition was not presented by the petitioner and necessary procedure for filing the petition was also not followed. Though such contention is made in the written statement, in the present application, the main contention is only the absence of cause of action.

6. In view of the aforesaid allegations made in the petition, first it needs to be ascertained as to whether the grounds given in section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 and the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] are there in the petition.