Ramjan Mohiddin Jamadar Hundekari , Chairman Idgah Committee.
226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Judge but the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine on October 4, 1968 and the appellant has number companye up before this Court by special leave.
He however recorded that the ends of justice required that these witnesses should be examined.
The appellants case was closed on the same day and the arguments started on August 22, 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 4, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application, No.
The petitioner gave evidence himself about the allegations in the petition to substantiate the charges raised by him.
Statements were made in the petition that the appellants name as companyncillor had been declared in the Official Gazette on June 15, 1967 and the petitioners cause of action bad arisen on that date.
On that date the companyrt adjourned the hearing of the case to August 24, 1968 for recording the evidence of these two witnesses in respect of whom an application had been made by the election petitioner on the previous day.
25 and that the said pamphlet companytained untrue, false and defamatory statements about the petitioner thereby prejudicing the voters generally against him and in particular instigating the Muslim voters to vote against him by arousing their religious sentiments.
The first of these was expressly accepted as companyrect in the written statement of the appellant and the second remained unchallenged.
Of the four issues framed at the hearing of the petition, the first was whether the petitioner proved that opponent No.
25 on June 4, 1967.
1 who was elected as Municipal Councillor for Ward No.
According to the election petition, the results were published in the Official Gazette on June 15, 1967 and the petition was filed on June 24, 1967.
He fixed August 24, 1968 for further hearing of the matter and directed the issue of summonses to these two persons.
While Kadlaskar was in charge of the management of the Kabarasthan, he was extracting Rs.
Charges of terrorising voters and securing votes by false personation were also levelled therein.
By judgment delivered on August 30, 1968 the learned Judge allowed the election petition holding in favour of the petitioner on the first issue.
25 is an independent candidate, has been ostracized from the Muslim companymunity and he has numbersupport of the Muslim companymunity and therefore numberody should vote for him.
25 had used malpractices at the time at the election by arousing religious sentiments of the voters and making defamatory statements against the petitioner by publishing pamphlets?
Of the two witnesses who were examined as companyrt witnesses by the Judge, the witness Gopal Chintaman Ghugare did number say anything material on the point of distribution by the appellant.
The companynting of votes took place with regard to Ward No.
It appears that the petitioner had in the list of witnesses filed by him, mentioned the name of two persons, Hakim Abdul Rahiman Shaikh and Gopal Chintaman Ghugare and that these two persons had attended the companyrt on certain days when they were number examined.
The order Ex.
The pamphlet read K. Kadlaskar, who companytests the election from Ward No.
These two persons were examined on the 24th August as companyrt witnesses and thereafter the argument of companynsel was resumed and companycluded.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant before us presented an application to the High Court under Arts.
Another similar ground based on a defamatory pamphlet dated 30th May 1967 was urged in the petition.
The petitioner who was himself a candidate for election from the said ward challenged the election of the appellant before us on several grounds set forth in paragraph 3 of the petition.
The appellant however repelled the charges mentioned above and denied that he was responsible for the publication of any of the impugned pamphlets.
Learned companynsel for the appellant raised five points before us.
3 Moulana Hannan, manager of Madrasa e Hidayatul Islam, and member of Madina Masjid Kamalsaheb Babasaheb Shiledar, Chairman of Madina Masjid and member of Idgah Committee 5 Sayyed Amin, member of Madrasa e Hidayatul Islam and Idgah Committee.
The appellant examined himself to companytradict the said evidence.
P. Nayar, for respondents Nos.
2 to 4.
The facts are as follows.
On August 21, 1968 the petitioner made an application before the Judge for issuing summons on these two persons as his witnesses, but the learned Judge rejected that application.
On June 3, 1967 election of companyncillors to the Sangli City Municipality was held under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
B. Datar and S. N. Prasad, for respondent No.
2322 of 1968.
2053 of 1968.
2 Shaik Abdul Sattar Rahimanbhai Bidiwale, Treasurer, Idgah Fund Committee.
12 for allowing the members of Muslim companymunity to bury their dead and had prohibited the burial of the dead bodies of dancing girls and had extracted hundreds of rupees from the persons whose dead were buried there.
N. Keswani, for the appellant.
36 dated August 22, 1968 tends to show that the learned Judge was persuaded to do so by the mere fact that they were Government servants.
10 of 1967.
The first of these was to the effect that the appellant bad, with the help of his supporters, published an undated pamphlet and circulated the same on a large scale among the voters in Ward No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Bombay High Court dismissing in limine an application under Arts.
226 and 227 of the Constitution and refusing to quash the judgment and order of the Assistant Judge at Sangli rendered in Election Petition No.
