NARAYAN WAKTU KARWADI Vs. PANJABRAO HUKAM SHAMBHARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Narayan Kaktu Karwade under Section 116a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. XLIII of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) THERE was an election held on 11-3-1957 in the Nagpur constituency of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. This constituency was a double seat constituency, out of which one seat was reserved for the scheduled castes and the other seat was a general seat. For the seat reserved for the scheduled castes the present appellant, Shrimati Anasuyabai Borkar, Shrimati Nagabai Vaidya, Shri Vinayakrao Changole and the first respondent were the duly nominated candidates. Before the due date, the appellant withdrew and the contest remained between the aforesaid remaining four candidates. As regards the general seat, the nominated candidates were the second respondent, Shri Wamanrao Gawande and Shri Mancharsha Awari. Both the respondents were candidates put up by Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti. The appellant was dummy candidate put up by the Congress. Shrimati Anasuyabai Borkar was the principal candidate put up by the Congress. So far as the general seat was concerned, Shri Gawande was the candidate put up by the Congress and Shri Awari was the candidate put up by the Praja-Socialist Party. The result of the election was declared on 14-3-1957 and the first respondent was declared elected for the seat reserved for the scheduled castes and the second respondent was declared elected for the general seat. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant made a petition on 25-4-1957 under Section 81 of the Act to the Election Commission, New Delhi. The election petition was then sent for decision to the Election Tribunal, Nagpur. The Election Tribunal, Nagpur, was a one-man Tribunal presided over by Mr. T. P. Ghogle, District Judge. Nagpur. By that petition the appellant had challenged the election of both the respondents on various grounds. It is, however, not necessary to reproduce all the contentions raised in the petition as in this appeal the only contention pressed on behalf of the appellant is as regards the validity of the election of the first respondent on the ground of improper acceptance of his nomination paper within the mean- ing of Section 100 (1) (d) (i) of the Act. The facts pleaded, on which this contention is founded, in the words of the appellant, are as follows: "respondent No. 1 Panjabrao s/o Hukam Shambharkar was not a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste within the meaning of the Constitution (Schedule castes) Order, 1950, as he was a person who professed religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh Religion. The respondent No. 1 Panjabrao s/o Hukam Shambharkar had embraced the Buddhist faith on or about 14-10-1956 at Nagpur and had continued to profess that religion after his conversion to that faith till the date of submission of his Nomination Paper i. e. , 29-1-1957 and thereafter. 'the Respondent No. 1 Panjabrao s/o Hukam Shambharkar's embracing Buddha religion must in law amount to his professing a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion and thus disentitling him to stand as a candidate for the seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste'". (Underlining there into ' ') is by us ). These allegations were denied by the first respondent. The Tribunal has found that the appellant has neither proved that the first respondent did not belong to a scheduled caste within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Order, nor has he proved that the first respondent had embraced Buddhist faith on or about 14-10-1956. These findings of the Tribunal are challenged before us.

(3.) SHRI M. N. Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that on evidence it has been established that the first respondent had embraced Buddhist religion, a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion. In the alternative, he contends that even if the evidence falls short of establishing actual conversion of the first respondent to Buddhism, it establishes that he had been at the material time declaring himself to be belonging to Buddhist religion and that was sufficient to bring the case within the third paragraph of the Order. He further contends that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not kept this distinction in view. Reliance is placed on the observations made in Ganeshprasad v. Damayanti, ILR 1946 Nag 1 at p. 9: (AIR 1946 Nag 60 at p. 63) (SB) (A) and in Niranjan Das Mohan v. Mrs. Ena Mohan, ILR (1943) 1 Cal 340 at p. 345: (AIR 1943 Cal 146 at p. 149) (B ).