ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN Vs. MADHAVRAO KINHALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 2nd April, 2001 passed by the Election Commission of India (for short the Commission?) wherein the Commission has expressed the view that it has jurisdiction under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for brevity the 1951 Act?) to embark upon the issue of alleged incorrectness or falsity of the return of election expenses maintained by the respondent, a candidate in election, under Section 77(1) and 77(2) lodged by him in exercise of power under Section 78 of the 1951 Act.

(2.) AS a pure question of law arises, we shall refer in brief to the facts of the case. The petitioner was a returned candidate at general election to the Maharashtra Legislative ASsembly held in September-October, 2009 from 85, Bhokar ASsembly constituency and at that point of time he was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Certain complaints were filed before the Commission stating, inter alia, that the account submitted by the petitioner is not correct and there should be an enquiry against him under Section 10A of the 1951 Act. After notice, the present petitioner entered contest and raised a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the nature of complaints before the Commission on the foundation that the Commission has no jurisdiction to go into the truthfulness or falsity of the expenditure. The Commission thought it appropriate to advert to the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner to address to the same and placing reliance on the decision in L.R. Shivaramgowda v. T.M. Chandrashekar, AIR 1999 SC 252 and interpreting various provisions of the 1951 Act and the Rules, namely, the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Rules?) has opined, as we have indicated hereinbefore.

(3.) MR.Venugopal, learned senior counsel, MR.Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, MR.Chopra and MR.Chandhiok, the learned Additional Solicitor General, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that there has been a change in the provision when the decision in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) was delivered by the Constitution Bench and hence, the ratio laid down therein would not be applicable. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further submit that the decision in L.R. Shivaramgowda (supra) lays down the law clearly and the same being a binding precedent, the Commission has correctly appreciated the ratio laid down therein and held that it has jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry.