LAWS(SC)-1995-7-25

GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT Vs. DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE

Decided On July 18, 1995
GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT Appellant
V/S
DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by two electors is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the election petition. The returned candidate has also filed cross objections challenging those findings which have gone against him. Both shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellants filed an election petition under S.80 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No. 1, Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, the returned candidate from 23 Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency in the elections held for the Xth Lok Sabha and also sought a declaration to the effect that respondent No.2 Shri Banwarilal Bhagwandas Purohit be declared as the duly elected candidate from the said Constituency after setting aside the election of the returned candidate. THE challenge to the election of respondent No.1 was mainly based on the allegations of commission of various corrupt practices by him and/or his election agent detailed in the petition.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 before filing his written statement raised a preliminary objection, through Ex.16 and Ex.17 to the effect that the allegations made in the petition were vague and that material facts and particulars had not been supplied and as such the vague pleadings were liable to be stuck off and the election petition rejected under S.81(3) read with S.86 of the Act. On 29-10-1991, however, Ex. 16 was rejected while application Ex.17 was allowed to the extent that the allegations made in the petition regarding the commission of corrupt practice under S.123(2) and (3A) were found to be vague and non specific and the pleadings in that connection were directed to be stuck off. Against the order of rejection of the preliminary objection raised in Ex.16, respondent No. 1 preferred a special leave petition being SLP(C) No. 19165-66/91 in this Court which was dismissed on 20/12/1991 by the following order :-