BHARAT PANDURANG DHOKANE Vs. YESHWANTRAO KANKARRAO GADAKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present election petition is filed challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 as a member of the Legislative Council from Ahmednagar; District Ahmednagar in the election held on 29th December, 1997, the result of which was declared on 31st December, 1997. The present respondent No. 1 contested the Legislative Council election of the Maharashtra Legislative Council from Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar constituency (hereinafter referred to as "the Constituency" for the purposes of brevity ). The petitioner also contested the said election and was sponsored by Shiv Sena party. The present respondent No. 1 was a candidate of Indian National Congress (I ). There was a third candidate, namely, Dilip Kumar Gandhi, who was fielded by Bharatiya Janata Party (B. J. P. ). Thus, in the fray, there were in all three candidates. The elections were held on 29th December 1997; whereas counting of votes was conducted on 31st December, 1997 and, on the same day, the results were declared. The respondent No. 1 was declared elected as he had secured 220 votes out of 320; whereas the petitioners secured 91 votes.

(2.) THIS case has got a bit chequered history. The respondent No. 1 in the year 1991 was elected in Parliamentary elections from 39, Ahmednagar (South) constituency. However, the said election of the respondent No. 1 was set aside by this Court in Election Petition No. 2/91 vide its judgment dated 30th March 1993, on the ground that the present respondent No. 1 was found guilty of corrupt practices under section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1951" ). The present respondent No. 1 had challenged that judgment and order of the High Court before the Supreme Court vide Appeal No. 2115/1993 which was partly allowed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 19-11-1993. However the decision of the High Court as regards the corrupt practices was upheld by the Supreme Court. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, the present respondent No. 1 was disqualified under the provisions of section 8-A of the Act of 1951.

(3.) IN pursuance of the above-said judgment of the Supreme Court, a notification dated 10-6-1994 was issued by the Honourable President of India, whereby the respondent No. 1 was declared disqualified for a period of four years from 19-11-1993 that is the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Needless to mention that the Honourable President of India, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 8-A of the Act of 1951, had sought the necessary opinion from the Election Commission. The respondent No. 1 moved necessary applications to various authorities i. e. District Election Officer, the Chairman, Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer on 19-9-1997 informing them that his disqualification was to expire on 18-11-1997, and that his name be reinstated in the electoral roll, then existing, immediately on the said expiry of disqualification. However, the petitioner contends, in this petition, that respondent No. 1 did not move any application before the Electoral Registration Officer which, according to the petitioner, was mandatory, in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950" ). According to the petitioner in pursuance of the provisions of section 6 (1) of the Act of 1951, the name of the respondent No. 1 could not have ben included in the final electoral roll on or before 1-1-1998 and such non-inclusion, therefore, according to the petitioner, was correct.