It was further alleged that the appellant was also, likewise, in default in the matter of payment of arrears of electricity charges in respect of a pump installed in the leased land.
The learned District Judge on an appreciation of the evidence held that appellant did suffer from the disqualification under Section 28 2 h in respect of the lease amount and set aside the election.
Appellant seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.
3 called in question the apellants election on the ground that appellant suffered from, and was under, a disqualification for being chosen as and for being a member of the Board under Section 28 2 h of the Act, in as much as appellant had failed to pay arrears of the rent due and owing by him to the Board in respect of a certain land, taken on lease by the appellant from the Board under deed dated 28.6.1982.
Appellants writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge has been dismissed in limine by the High Court.
Ill at the election held on 22.12.1985 and whose election has been set aside by the Extra Joint District Judge, Nasik, in election petition No.
In the present case, the Cantonment Board itself had issued a certificate Exhibit 51 to the following effect Certified that the numberice of Demand in Schedule 1 from Cantonment Board, Deolali for payment of arrears of lease land has number been issued to Mr. Nisarkhan Ibrahim Khan.
III of the Deolali Cantonment Board companystituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924, Act .
This appeal is by the returned candidate, who was elected as a Member of the Deolali Cantonment Board Board from Ward No.
1418 of 1987 before the High Court of judicature at Bombay assailing the said order of the District Judge having been dismissed in limine on 17.3.1987.
3, the appellant was, declared elected.
3 who was another companytesting candidate.
We have heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri Bhasme, Senior Advocate for the respondent No.
The appellant having secured 771 votes as against 749 votes secured by respondent No.
The appellants writ petition No.
The appeal is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this Judgment.
The material facts necessary for determination of the companytroversy in this appeal may briefly be stated Appellant and respondent No.
12 of 1985 at the instance of respondent No.
By an election petition filed before the District Judge Nasik under Rule 43 of the Cantonment Board Election Rules, framed under the A, respondent No.
The results of the election were declared on 23.12.1985.
3 were candidates at and companytested the election for Membership from Ward No.
Polling took place on 22.12.1985.
Special leave is granted.
Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Solicitor General appeared for the Cantonment Board, Respondent No.
