RAMAKANT MAYEKAR CHHAGAN BHUJBAL PRAMOD MAHAJAN BALASAHEB THACKERAY Vs. CELINE DSILVA:CELINE DSILVA:CELINE D SILVA:CELINE DSILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the returned candidate under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short "the R. P. Act") against the judgment dated 5th/6th August. 1991 in Election Petition No. 21 of 1990 by S. N. Variava, J. of the Bombay High Court whereby the election of the appellant to the Maharashtraa Legislative Assembly from 49 - Kurla Legislative Constituency held on 27-2-1990 has been declared to be void on the ground under Section 100 (1)(b) for commission of corrupt practices under sub-sections(3)and(3A) of the R. P. Act. By the said judgment, the learned Judge has decided the election petition and made the order under Section 98 declaring the election of the appellant to be void but the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 5 have been reserved for being recorded after the inquiry under Section 99 of the R. P. Act is concluded against Chhagan Bhujbal, Pramod Mahajan, Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi and Pramod Navalkar to whom notices have been issued under Section 99 of the R. P. Act by the order made therein. The ultimate conclusion in the final order made in the impugned judgment is quite involved because of the unusual mode adopted of deciding the election petition piecemeal. Instead of attempting to summarise the conclusion, it is safer to quote certain portions of the concluding part of the judgment, as under:-

(2.) After the impugned judgment was rendered, notices under Section 99 of the R. P. Act were issued to the aforesaid five persons who then raised certain preliminary objections to the validity of the notices. Variava, J. by his order dated 6-1-1192 rejected those objections. The notices given to these persons related to certain speeches alleged to have been made by them on 29-1-1999- and 24-2-1990 which, it was alleged, constituted corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the R. P. Act. In the said order dated 6-1-1992, Variava, J. has mentioned certain facts in the background of which the objections to the notices under Section 99 were considered in that order. Those facts mentioned at the outset in the said order are as under:-

(3.) At the beginning of the impugned judgment, the scope of the election petition and the true perspective in which it has to be decided has been stated by Variava, J. as under:-