RAVI VENKANTI BHADARGE Vs. BANSI DHURAJI BHADARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE general elections of the Municipal Council, Manwat were notified by the Collector, Parbhani on 2-11-1996 and the same were held on 1-11-1996. The seat from ward no. 3 was reserved for the candidate of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner and the respondents no 1 to 6 filed their nomination papers for the said seat and contested the election. The result was declared on 2-12-1996. It was declared that the respondent no. 6 was elected as he secured the highest number of votes i. e. 266. The respondent no. 2 secured second highest votes i. e. 192. There is a discrepant statement regarding the actual votes secured by the petitioner. At the close of para no. 3 it is stated, "the petitioner secured 139 votes. The petitioner secured 137 votes. " At the close of para no. 4 of the petition, it is averred. "the petitioner secured 139 votes. The petitioner secured 137 votes. " Apart this discrepancy, it is not disputed that the petitioner was defeated in the said election.

(2.) THE election of respondent no. 6 was challenged by the respondent no. 1 in election Petition No. 4 of 1996 in the District Court, Parbhani. In the same way, the respondent no. 2 also challenged the election of respondent no. 6 by filing election Petition No. 6 of 1996 in the same Court. The judgment of the learned additional District Judge shows that these two respondents who were petitioners in the said petitions, had made two prayers, one was for declaring the election of the present respondent no. 6 as null and void and the other was for declaration that the present respondent no. 2 who was petitioner in Election Petition No. 6 of 96 be declared as elected. It may be pointed out that the election of the present respondent no. 6 was challenged mainly on two grounds. The first was that he did not belong to toe Scheduled caste community but, he belongs to Mohammedan community and as such, he was not eligible to contest the election for a seat in Ward no. 3 which was reserved for scheduled caste candidate only. The second ground of challenge was that the present respondent no. 6 had indulged in certain corrupt practices. The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 10-11-1997 did not accept the second ground that the present respondent no. 6 was guilty of corrupt practices or that he had (sic) any malpractice as alleged, at the time of the election. The learned Judge however, upheld the other ground namely that the present respondent no. 6 was not eligible to contest the election from Ward No. 3. Since he did not belong to scheduled caste community. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge proceeded to pass an order setting aside the election of the present respondent no. 6. It may further be pointed out that the learned Judge thereafter proceeded to declare the present respondent no. 2 as duly elected as he had secured the second highest votes in the said election. It is this part of the order passed by the learned Judge which is being challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner, Shri M. N. Kambale, advocate with Shri K. S. Chavan, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Shri ashok B. Tele, Advocate for respondents 3 and 5, Shri R. S. Deshmukh A. G. P. for r. No. 7. Nobody appeared for respondents no. 4 and 6 though they were duly served. Shri Salunke submitted before me that so far as the setting aside of the election of respondent no. 6 is concerned, he does not have any grievance. According to him, the learned Judge was however, in error in declaring the present respondent no. 2 as duly elected. Shri Salunke submitted that the declaration was contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1965 ).