MANIKRAO PATIL Vs. BAPU RAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A. No. TIT is an application filed by the first respondent (Returned Candidate) praying for the striking out of the paragraphs in the Election Petition concerning the allegations relating to corrupt practices alleged to have been indulged in by the first respondent. The relevant issue in this regard is No. 5, which is set out later. This issue was set down for hearing as a preliminary issue. But by common consent of Counsel Issue No. 7 and two other issues, namely 3 and 6, the survival or otherwise of which would depend on the findings on issues Nos. 5 and 7, have also been taken up and treated as preliminary ones. Hence the issues arising for consideration are 3, 5, 6 and 7. The petitioner, it must be stated, has made no attempt to amend or amplify the particulars furnished in the Petition relative to corrupt practices. Before setting them out, it is necessary to briefly advert to a few relevant facts.

(2.) In the elections held in March, 1972 for a seat for the Mysore Legislative Assembly from Aurad Constituency, in Bidar District, the first respondent, who contested the election as an independent candidate, allegedly supported by M. E. S. (Maha-rashtra Ekikarana Samithi) Party, was returned. The petitioner and the second respondent had also contested in the election on behalf of what have since come to be known as Congress (O) and Congress (R) respectively. The votes secured by the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 were 18,570, 22,431 and 13,376 respectively. The polling for the seat in question took place on 9-3-1972 and the results were announced on 11-3-1972. The Election Petition has been presented on 25-4-1972.

(3.) The election of the first respondent has been challenged on grounds relating to disqualification, with which I am not concerned for the present, and corrupt practices falling under the definitions in subsections (3), 3 (a) and (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R. P. Act), which will be referred to later in detail when they fall to be examined in the context of the law applicable to such matters. The Petition is also accompanied by five pamphlets marked as Annexures 1 to 5, the contents of which also will be referred at a later stage. But it is relevant to state that one of the reliefs sought by the petitioner is that he himself might be declared as duly elected. The petition is resisted on behalf of the first respondent only, and apart from controverting the various allegations in the Petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner himself has been guilty of certain corrupt practices and, therefore, is not entitled to be declared as elected.