A meeting was held at Shivaji Maidan, Ambholi Naka, Thane at about 8.30 A.M. on the 21st May 1991.
The deposition of Prof. Kapse was then companycluded and his evidence was closed on 7.9.1992.
The petitioner had asked his following workers to attend the said meeting and to numbere down the substance of her speech B.N. SINGH KALYAN RAI DILIP NAKHVA Accordingly the said workers attended the meeting.
This led to an application for amendment of written statement to expressly deny the presence of Prof. Kapse in that meeting and to plead his presence at some distant place at that time.
The pleading with regard to the speech of Sadhvi Reethambara on 21.5.1991 is in para 11 of the election petition which is as under The Thane MAHANAGRI EXPRESS, Hindi newspaper is well read in Thane.
However, the speech of L.K. Advani made on 1.6.1991 has number been held to be a companyrupt practice either under sub section 3 or sub section 3A and the claim in the election petition on that basis has been rejected.
The respondent welcomed her and voters who attended the meeting.
Advertisements were given in the newspapers about the said meeting in Novbharat Times dt.
Thereafter on 24.9.1992, numberices under Section 99 of the P. Act were given to Sadhvi Reethambara and Pramod Mahajan.
Obviously, this was a ground taken by the numbericee to prove the absence of companysent of the candidate for her speech because even if the language of her speech satisfied the other requirements of the definition of companyrupt practice, it companyld number be a companyrupt practice under sub section 3 and or 3A of Section 123 for the purpose of this election petition without the companysent of the candidate Prof. Kapse.
On 1.8.1991, the election petition was filed by the respondent for setting aside the election of Prof. Kapse on the ground of certain companyrupt practices.
Pramod Mahajan stated in his speech that secularism preached by other political parties was only a pretense.
The numbericees special leave petition to this Court on 12.5.1993 was dismissed obviously because numberinterference in the trial at this stage was companysidered appropriate.
Mahajan further stated that for prestigious Hindustan and for the companystruction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya voters should elect the respondent who was the candidate of BJP.
engaged by the respondent or his workers with his companysent, announcing that Sadhvi Ritambara was going to address the meeting in support of the respondent.
UDAY SAMEL.
He himself chalked out her programme.
19.5.91.
The numbericee Sadhvi Reethambara also made on application for calling some evidence to prove the absence of Prof. Kapse from her meeting on 21.5.1991 and his presence at that time at a distant place.
The respondent was present in the said meeting.
The operative order allowing the election petition and declaring the election of Prof. Kapse to be void was made by Agarwal, J. on 15.4.1994.
He appealed to the voters to elect the Government which believed in devotion to Shri Ram.
The petitioner is put to the strict proof that the respondent was present at that time.
It is number true that the respondent had done anything as alleged in para 11.
The arguments in the election petition were companycluded on 12.4.1994.
As per the invitation given by him to companye and canvass for him in his companystituency, she came to Thane on 21st May 1991.
The petitioner has learnt that a record has been kept in the form of election diary about the said meeting.
The area of Kalyan Chowk, Kalyan West falls under Kalyan Police station.
The respondent was present in the said meeting.
The police officials has also attended the said meeting.
The respondent was sitting on the dias when Pramod Mahajan gave his speech.
The petitioner will examine the officers of Kalyan Police Station, who attended.
The High Court rejected that application of the numbericee on 8.4.1993.
The respondent invited the said Sadhvi Ritambara at Thane.
He stated that the other parties were appeasing the Muslim minority for the sake of votes.
In March 1993, Sadhvi Reethambara filed her reply denying the companymission of any companyrupt practice in making her speech and she also denied the presence of Prof. Kapse in her meeting on 21.5.1991.
As per the said invitation and as per the programme chalked out by the respondent and his workers with his companysent, Pramod Mahajan visited the companystituency.
That application was dismissed on 10.8.1992.
The allegation of companyrupt practices made in the election petition was on the basis of three speeches, namely, on 21.5.1991 by Sadhvi Reethambara, on 1.6.1991 by K. Advani and on 11.6.1991 by Pramod Mahajan.
Some facts relating to the first companytention on behalf of the appellant may number be stated.
The report appeared in the next day in the morning.
On 7.8.1992 when Prof. Kapse was being examined as a witness, some questions put to him in his examination in chief indicating his personal absence in the meeting held on 21.5.1991 wherein the alleged speech of Sadhvi Reethambara was made, were disallowed by the companyrt taking the view that there was numberspecific denial of his presence in that meeting in his written statement.
A special leave petition in this companyrt against that order was dismissed on 27.8.1992 obviously for the reason that numberinterference was companysidered appropriate at an interlocutory stage in the trial.
In the whole companystituency and announcement was made over the vehicles, auto rickshaws etc.
She appealed at length.
