TUKARAM S DIGHOLE Vs. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS election petition challenges the declaration of the respondent as the elected candidate from 69, Sinnar constituency at the election held on 13. 10. 2004. It has been filed by a candidate of the NCP-Congress and R. P. I. alliance who unsuccessfully contested the elections. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has indulged in corrupt practices thereby materially affecting the result of the election for the Sinnar constituency. The petitioner has prayed that the election of the respondent be declared void u/s 100 1 (b), 100 1 (d) (ii), 100 (d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE petitioner has alleged that the returned candidate had flagrantly violated the provisions of the Act and the election rules framed thereunder. He has also alleged that the returned candidate had violated several orders of the election commission issued under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has pointed out in his election petition that 135065 votes were cast. The respondent secured 67556 votes while the petitioner managed 47593 votes. The respondent was therefore, declared elected by the returning officer on 16. 10. 2004. The Petitioner has contended that the respondent had caused deletion of names of a particular community from the voters' list and voters from another community who supported the respondent were included in the electoral rolls by 10. 7. 2003. Bogus names were included in the voters' list at the behest of the respondent with the connivance of the Talathi and the Tehsildar of the constituency. The petitioner claims to have complained, on 11. 7. 2003, to the Minister of State for Revenue and Forest, bringing to light the illegal deletion and addition of names to the voters' list. The petitioner then claims that the respondent issued a pamphlet elucidating details of the work undertaken by the latter, who was a sitting MLA. The pamphlet had details about the inauguration of a welfare centre and about a bhoomi-puja being performed for the schools. The petitioner on 7. 9. 2004 addressed a letter to the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) Nasik Road, complaining against the Tehsildar who had deleted the names of the voters from the Vanzari community as well as other voters from the minority community. According to the petitioner, a letter/pamphlet was circulated in his constituency purported to be authored by him. This pamphlet which was allegedly signed by the petitioner exhorted the voters to cast their vote for the petitioner who belonged to the Vanzari caste. According to the petitioner copies of this letter were distributed amongst the members of the Maratha community in order to prejudice them. Reliance is placed on a copy of the letter/pamphlet dated 28. 9. 2004 by annexing it to the election petition at Exhibit E and E1. The petitioner claims to have complained about this false propaganda to the election commissioner on 11. 10. 2004, by a written communication, which is annexed at F and F1. The Election Commissioner was to identify the real author of the document by making the necessary investigations. The petitioner issued a public notice in the local newspaper clarifying to the effect that he had not issued the letter/pamphlet. This document has been annexed at Exhibit G and G1. An FIR was lodged by the petitioner with Sinnar police station and the case was registered as CR No. I-180/2004 on 12. 10. 2004 under sections 465, 467, 471, 419, 420, 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged against an unknown person on the basis of the letters/pamphlets. A representation was also sent to the Deputy Chief Minister by the petitioner seeking an enquiry into the issue.

(3.) THE Petitioner has then alleged that the private secretary of the respondent had issued a press release stating that the employees of Bhairavnath Path Sanstha were working against the respondent and that the respondent had not complained against them. A news item was published in the local newspaper Deshdhoot mentioning that the respondent would initiate an enquiry against the petitioner, if elected, and that the existing Board of Directors of the Sanstha of which the petitioner was the Chairman, would be dissolved. A copy of the news item published on 12. 10. 2004 has been annexed to the petition. A representation was submitted to the Deputy Chief Minister again by the petitioner complaining of illegal and unauthorised work, which was being carried out by the respondent when the model code of conduct was in force. A copy of this representation has also been annexed to the petition. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondent had published a special supplement to a local newspaper 'gavkari' on 3. 9. 2004 describing the work that he supposedly had carried out, despite the code of conduct being in force from 24. 8. 2004 till 25. 10. 2004. According to the Petitioner, this publication was issued to mislead the voters into believing the bogus claims about the work allegedly carried out by the respondent.