VITHALRAO RAJARAM HINGWE Vs. M K JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition directly arises out of our decision in Vithalrao Rajaram Hiogwe v. M. K. Joshi, First Appeal No. 11 of 1963: (reported in AIR 1964 Bom 63) and we are here concerned with the same order as in that appeal. It is the order of the Election Tribunal Wardha, passed on 15th December 1962 in Election Petition No. 147 of 1962.

(2.) FIRST Appeal No. 11 of 1963 was an appeal preferred! against the order of the Election Tribunal dismissing an application for substitution under Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Election Tribunal had dismissed the petition on the short ground that a deposit made by the petitioner applying for substitution in place of a deceased petitioner was not made in compliance with Section 117 of the Act and, therefore, the petition for substitution could not be considered. When the First Appeal came up for hearing before us, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the present respondent No. 2 that no appeal lay against such an order of the Election Tribunal, and by our judgment dated 14-3-1963 in First Appeal No. 11 of 1963 reported in (AIR 1964 Bom 63) we upheld that objection. At the same time we noted in that judgment that the then appellant before us Vithalrao Rajaram Hingwe had made alternative prayers that the memo of appeaj should be treated as a writ petition or that we should exercise our power under Art. 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the order of the Election Tribunal or, in the alternative, that we should treat it as a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We did not pronounce upon those alternative prayers but having dismissed the appeal, left it to the appellant to take such remedy as he chose to take. Accordingly, he has now filed the present application invoking the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) HAVING regard to the pronouncements of their Lordships qf the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, (S) AIR 1955 SC 233 there can be no doubt today that this Court can interfere with the orders of Election Tribunals, though within the strict limits laid down by the several decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case just referred to, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 20: