MANOHAR JOSHI CHHAGAN BHUJBAL Vs. DAMODAR TATYABA ALIAS DADASAHEB RUPWATE:DAMODAR TATYABA ALIAS DADASAHEB RUPWATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions arise out of a common order dated 29th October, 1990 passed by the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 5 of 1990 and raise a common question of law. Hence they are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Leave is granted in both the petitions. The election petition in which the impugned order is passed was filed by a defeated candidate (Respondent No. 1) against the elected candidate (Respondent No. 2) and other contesting candidates challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 2 to the Lok Sabha from the Bombay South Central Constituency in the election held on November 24, 1989. The election of respondent No. 2 is challenged in the petition, among other things, on the ground of corrupt practices under sub-sees. (2, (3) and (3A) of S. 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It appears from the impugned order that the High Court has reached a stage in the trial of the election petition where examination-in-chief and cross-examination of about 14 witnesses has been completed and various documents have been brought on record. It is at this stage that the impugned order has been made, the operative part of which reads as follows :

(3.) The order is assailed on the ground that although it directs the issuance of notice to the appellants to answer allegations of corrupt practices allegedly committed by them, it is vague and does not indicate which of the corrupt practices they are alleged to have committed and which evidence on record supports them. In the absence of the specific charge/s and the evidence in support of it/them indicated in the order and the notices issued pursuant to it, the appellants are at a loss to comprehend the case that they are called upon to meet. They are thus put to a disadvantage and are gravely prejudiced. It is pointed out that the consequences of naming a person on his being found guilty pursuant to such notice are grave inasmuch as, among other things, he incurs a disqualification for contesting election under Art. 103 of the Constitution read with S. 8A of the Act. It is also urged that even otherwise the notice to appear and the opportunity to show cause contemplated under the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 99 of the Act enjoins upon the Court to state precisely the charge and the evidence which the person summoned is called upon to meet. It does not contemplate a vague notice such as the one which is issued and is directed to be issued by the impugned order.