YESHVANTARAO BALWANTRAO CHAVAN Vs. K T MANGALMURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special civil application raises an important question under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the question arises in this way.

(2.) AN election to the Bombay Legislative Assembly from an Assembly Constituency known as the Karad North Assembly Constituency was to be held on 2-5-1957. Before 29-1-1957 five candidates including the present petitioner and the second respondent had filed their nomination papers and 29-1-1957 was the last date for filing nominations. All these nominations were scrutinized and accepted by the Returning Officer as valid nominations on 1-2-1957. It appears that one of the five candidates withdrew his candidature before the date fixed for withdrawal and then the Returning Officer published a list of contesting candidates under Section 38 of the Representation of the People Act. There is HO dispute that that list included the names of the petitioner, the second respondent and two other candidates viz. , Mahomed Abdulla Awate and Ali Suleman Mulla. Mahomed Abdulla Awate and Ali Suleman Mulla, however, retired from the contest on or about 15-2-1957 and this was in accordance with Section 55a of the Act. They gave notice to the Returning Officer about their retirement from contest. The election was held on 2-3-1957 and the result of the election was declared on 4-3-1957. The result of the election was that the petitioner became successful in the election, having obtained 25,297 votes as against 23,671 votes obtained by the second respondent.

(3.) ON 16-4-1957 the second respondent filed a petition before the Election Commission of India and it was numbered as petition No. 8 of 1957. By the petition, the second respondent charged the petitioner with corrupt and illegal practices committed by the petitioner and other persons during the said election. In the said petition the second respondent also complained of material irregularities and illegalities which, according to the second respondent, materially affected the result of the election. Further, he complained of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the rules and the orders made thereunder. The second respondent", therefore, claimed a declaration that the said election of the petitioner was void and that the second respondent be declared as duly elected.