LAWS(SC)-2000-11-108

KANHAIYALAL VISHINDAS GIDWANI Vs. ARUN DATTATRAYA MEHATA

Decided On November 16, 2000
KANHAIYALAL VISHINDAS GIDWANI Appellant
V/S
ARUN DATTATRAYA MEHTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Designated Election Tribunal (High Court of Judicature at Bombay) dated 23rd July, 1999 in Election Petition No. 2/98 the appellant abovenamed has preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the election petition before the High Court.

(2.) The petitioner filed the aforesaid election petition before the High Court challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the Maharashtra Legislative Council which was held on 18th of June, 1998 on the ground that the nomination paper of respondent No. 1 filed in the said election was invalid in law since the same was not subscribed by the proposers as required under Section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') because the proposers did not consciously propose the nomination of respondent No. 1 and they had signed only a blank form. He also contended that in the event of respondent No. 1's election being declared invalid, he is entitled to be declared as the elected candidate.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 opposed the election petition contending that the petition was barred by limitation as stipulated under Section 81 of the Act, and also for non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Sections 83 and 86 of the Act. He further contended that since the petitioner had not objected to the validity of his nomination paper before the Returning Officer, he is estopped from questioning the same in a subsequent election petition. Respondent No. 1 also specifically denied the allegation that the 10 Congress MLAs referred to in para 8 of the election petition, had at any point of time, signed a blank nomination paper. On the contrary, he asserted that the said 10 proposers signed his nomination paper when his name was already filled in the nomination paper. It was also alternatively pleaded that there is no statutory requirement that a proposer must sign a nomination paper only when it contains the name of the candidate.