DILIP PARASRAM Vs. KAMAL NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate from Parliamentary constituency No. 27, Chhindwara. Distt. Chhindwara, in the election held on 8.2.1997 for the Parliament, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under sections 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act') has prayed for declaration of the election of respondent No.3, the returned candidate, to be void, and further to grant any other relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The main grounds on which the petition has been filed are that the respondent No.3 the candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, (i) has taken resort to corrupt practices by not submitting the proper expenditure made by him in the election and spending in excess than the scheduled amount; and (ii) had given a speech in the name of religion to attract the voters.

(2.) THE case as pleaded in the election petition is that the petitioner contested as an independent candidate for the Constituency No. 27, Chhindwara, in the Parliamentary election held on 8.2.1997. The votes of the said election were counted on 11.2.1997 and 12.2.1997 and the respondent No. 3, a candidate of the Bhartiya Janta party, was declared elected. It is put forth that the respondent No.1 was a candidate of the Congress (I) party and he secured 3,06,622 votes and the respondent No.3 secured 3,44,302 votes. It has been alleged that the respondent No.3 in violation of the provision enshrined under section 123(3) of the Act, addressed a huge gathering on 6.2.1997 at 7 p.m. in the Stadium Ground Chhindwara and made an appeal on the ground of his religion, i.e., Jainism. He gave a speech in the meeting indicating that the people should vote for him as he is a Jain and should not vote for the respondent No.1, the candidate of the Congress (I). It is further alleged that respondent No. 3 further stated that his party, i.e., Bhartiya Janta Party is fighting the cause of 'Ram' in 'Ayodhya' and hence, the voters of Chhindwara should vote for him and his party. Because of this appeal which was founded on religion, the voters of Chhindwara Parliamentary constituency were misguided, as a result of which the respondent No. 3 became successful defeating the respondent No.1, the candidate of the Congress (I). It is pleaded that by virtue of this action, the respondent No. 3 is guilty of committing corrupt practice as there has been a breach of the provision as enshrined under section 123(3) of the Act. It has been set forth that in the said public meeting, the petitioner Brij Mohan Sahu, Firoz Khan and Thakur Hemant Singh were present. The other compartment of corrupt practice as levelled against the respondent No.3 relates to the election expenses of the respondent No.3. It is put forth in the petition that the respondent 3 declared his total expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,09,923/ - which is false and does not show the real expenditure incurred by the candidate. It is alleged that respondent No.3 has not shown the. expenses incurred towards telephone calls which is estimated to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -. He has also not shown the expenses borne out by him for inviting the Bhartiya Janta Party workers from the State of Gujarat who travelled by aero plane from Gujarat to the State of M.P. during the election period. It has been alleged that the said expenditure must have exceeded more than Rs.2 lacs. It is also set forth in the petition that in the accounts, it has been mentioned that the Bhartiya Janta Party had spent Rs. 3,22,422/ - but as an actual fact, same has been borne by the respondent No.3. Thus, it is pleaded that the respondent No.3 has exceeded the permissible limit, i.e., Rs. 4.5 lacs fixed for the State of M.P. and hence, he 'is guilty of corrupt practice as provided under section 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Rules 86 to 90 of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1964.

(3.) THE respondent No.3, the returned candidate, Shri Sunderlal Patwa, has filed his reply refuting the allegations made in the written statement. He has denied the allegations regarding violation of any provisions of the Act. His specific stand is that he had not addressed any public meeting on 6.2.1997 at 7 p.m. and the question of making an appeal on the ground of religion did not arise. It is also put forth that the majority of voters in Chhindwara constituency do not belong to Jain religion and he had not appealed to them in the name of his religion to vote for him. It is also denied that the said respondent appealed to the voters to vote for him in the name of Lord Rama. He has also disputed that the voters were misled by making such an appeal. The presence of the persons in the meeting is also disputed. It is categorically put forth that on 6.2.1997 at about 12 noon, a public meeting was held at Chhindwara and the same was addressed by Shri Atal Behari Bajpai and in the said meeting, the respondent No.3 had welcomed the chief guest and spoken for two minutes.