MADHAVRAO DEVRAO POUL Vs. VASANTRAO NARAYANRAO DEVKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an interesting question under the Maha-rashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' as to whether a District Judge without being specially appointed for the purpose could inquire into and dispose of election petitions filed under Section 27 of the Act. The question arises on the following admitted facts:

(2.) Elections to the Zilla Parishad of Bhir were being held 'in May, 1972. The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 were contesting elections from what is known as Mahalas Javla Constituency. In that election the petitioner polled 4,124 votes as against the 1st respondent, who polled 2,359 votes, and the second respondent, who polled 1,287 votes. The election of the petitioner was, however, challenged by the 1st respondent by an election petition, which was presented to the District Judge, Bhir. The election was challenged on several grounds of alleged corrupt practices. It is enough to state that on the issues settled for decision the learned District Judge held that the first respondent had proved that the petitioner was guilty of corrupt practices by reason of his having transported voters in his truck and also in a jeep. The learned District Judge further disqualified the petitioner under sub-section (8) of Section 27 of the Act, after setting aside the election. Correctness of that order has been challenged by this petition.

(3.) Mr. Chapalgaonkar, the learned advocate, who has appeared in support of this petition, has assailed the order of the learned District Judge on three grounds. At the outset he has attacked the order of the District Judge as being one passed without jurisdiction and, secondly, he submits that the finding of the learned District Judge about the alleged corrupt practices by the petitioner is based on no evidence and, lastly, it is submitted that, in any ' event, since the order disqualifying the petitioner from being a member for a term of five years is passed without the petitioner being given an opportunity of being heard the same is also null and void.