CHHAGAN BHUJBAL Vs. BALARAM DAGDU NANDGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner as one of the unsuccessful candidates has questioned the validity and legality of the election of the 1st Respondent to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 27-Mazgaon Constituency, Bombay held on 12th February 1995, the result of which was declared after counting on 12th March 1995. THE petition has been filed in this Court on 19th April 1995. THEre were in all 8 contesting candidates including the petitioner and respondent no.1 herein. THE petitioner herein is a 2nd highest to secure 29.454 votes as against 41729 votes secured by the 1st respondent. Rest of the contestants have secured votes which are much lesser in number needing no mention herein. THE petitioner has annexed as Exh-A showing the statement of votes secured by each candidate.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the election of the 1st respondent principally on two grounds which are : (i) According to the petitioner at the relevant time respondent no.1 was disqualified for standing for being elected and or being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly since as on that day he held the Office of Profit under the Government which operated as a disqualification from he being a member of the legislative assembly. THE petitioner states that the respondent no.1 at the relevant time was a full time salaried employee of the Air-India which is known as Air-India International, receiving a remuneration of Rs.4500/- per month and under the provisions of Parliament Prevention of Disqualification Act 1959 and the Maharashtra Legislative Member (Removal of Disqualification) Act of 1959, the 1st respondent being a regular salaried employee was disqualified from contesting the assembly election. THE reference is also made to the provisions as contained under article 191 of the Constitution of India. THE petitioner states that the 1st respondent contested the said assembly election without relinquishing his job with the Air-India and thus continued to be an employee of Air-India through-out the election period and even up to the time he was declared elected. According to the petitioner, this is in clear violation of the provisions of article 191 of the Constitution of India and read with Parliament Prevention of disqualification Act 1959 and the Maharashtra Legislative Members (Removal on Disqualification) Act 1959 as also Section 100 of the Representation of People's Act 1951 (THE said Representation of People's Act 1951 is hereinafter referred to as the said Act for brevity's sake). THE petitioner proceeds to state that he brought the said fact of the 1st Respondent being a employee of Air-India to the notice of Chief Election Officer, State of Maharashtra by his letter stating that the respondent no.1 held an office of profit under the Government of India, but no action was taken there upon. (ii) THE next ground upon which the petitioner has questioned the election of the 1st respondent is to the effect that the 1st respondent and or his election agents and/or other persons with the consent of respondent no.1 have committed corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the said Act. THE petitioner has set out various facts of corrupt practices having indulged by the respondent no.1 and/or his election agents and or other persons with the consent of the respondent no.1 rendering the election of the 1st respondent null and void on account thereof.

(3.) BESIDES repudiating the various allegations made by the petitioner herein the 1st respondent has also raised preliminary points questioning the maintainability of this election petition. In as much as, it is asserted by the 1st respondent that the petition as presented is not in confirity with the provisions of the said Act and rules framed thereunder. That the full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices have not been spelt out in the petition and for these reasons the petition as filed is not maintainable.