DAMODAR TATYABA Vs. VAMANRAO MAHADIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the arguments have been common, these are being dealt with by this common Order.

(2.) MR. Chinoy and Mr. Korde raise a Preliminary Issue as to the maintainability of the three Notices, issued pursuant to the Order dated 25/03/1991. They submit that the question of maintainability be decided first. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon the case of Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1926. Based on this it is submitted that the Court is bound to raise this and try this as a Preliminary Issue. Mr. Vashi has no objection to these submissions being heard and decided first. I have accordingly heard parties on the question of maintainability of the Notices.

(3.) THE challenge as to maintainability of the Notices is on two grounds. Firstly, that no charge under Section 123 (3) and (3a) of the Representation of the People Act has been made out and that for that reason the Notices are not maintainable. Secondly, it is urged that the Notices do not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 11/03/1991.