VIMAL Vs. BHAGUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these appeals, the decision of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated April 20, 1991 in Election Petition No. 7 of 1990 is under challenge. The election petitioner Sri Bhaguji Nivrutti Satpute had questioned the election of the appellant in C. A. No. 2227 of 1991 Dr. (Mrs.) Vimal Nandkishor Mundada to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly from 201 Kaij (Scheduled caste) Constituency held in 1990 by filing a petition under the Representation of the People Act 1950 (1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Representation Act) before the Bombay High Court inter alia on the grounds that Sri Ere Maruti Nivrutti was a Lingayat by caste but he filed his nomination as Lingder, that Mangesh Pralhadrao Ranjankar the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2571 of 1991 Kalal by caste but he filed his nomination as Khatik, that appellant Dr. Vimal Mundada had although embraced Jainism after her marriage, but filed her nomination as Chambhar but canvassed for vote as Jain (Hindu) and Dr. Vimal also canvassed for votes on the ground of religion and promoted communal hatred between two classes of citizen and thereby committed corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation Act. It may be stated here that the result of election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the said 201 Kaij Constituency (S.C) held on 27-2-1990 was declared on 1-3-1990 and the appellant Dr. Vimal Mundada having secured 35957 votes was declared elected from the said constituency. The election petitioner Sri Bhaguji secured 25736 votes and the other appellant Sri Mangesh Ranjankar secured 15260 votes in the said election. Both the appellants namely Dr. Vimal and Sri. Mangesh filed their written statements in the election petition before the High Court and disputed the correctness of the allegations made against them by the election petitioner. The allegations and counter allegations regarding other candidates in the said election petition need not be referred to for the disposal of these appeals.

(2.) The appellant Dr. Vimal Mundada in her written statement (Ext. 18) denied the allegations made against her regarding caste, community, promotion of hatred between two classes of citizens and resorting to corrupt practice as alleged. She also stated that Sri Ere Maruti Nivrutti belonged to Lingder community and simply because he was described as Wani, he did not cease to be a Lingder. It was also contended by Dr. Vimal that the election petitioner had never objected to the caste certificate of Sri Ere Maruti. She also contended that Sri Mangesh Ranjankar belonged to Khatik community and the caste certificate was issued in 1990 by a competent authority on the basis of relevant documents. Hence the nominations of Sri Ere Maruti and Sri Mangesh as scheduled caste candidates were correctly accepted by the returning officer. The appellant Dr. Vimal also contended that the voters of Kaij constituency was against Congress-I party and hence votes cast in favour or Sri Maruti or Sri Mangesh would have never gone in favour of the election petitioner. It was also stated that in the Parliamentary constituency of which Kaiz constituency was one of the segments, the Congress I candidate got defeated by Janta Dal candidate. That apart, the election petitioner lost his reputation as M.L.A. Although he contested the previous election as an independent candidate and had criticised the policies and achievements of Congress I party, he joined Congress I party later on and he had also enemies within his own party and he had failed to develop public relation.

(3.) Dr. Vimal in her written statement specifically denied that she had posed herself as Marwari, Community woman and having married Sri Nand Kishore Mundada had presented herself as Jain to the voters. She stated that by marriage she had not lost her caste or religion more so when marriage was performed according to vedic rites. She also stated that she had not published posters or banners nor did she sub-scribed the newspaper publication. Posters or banners were also not displayed with her consent. She had appealed to the voters according to manifesto of B. J.P. and criticised the policies of the Ruling Party on various aspects of national life.