If Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies, then the election petition filed on 16.4.1990 was within time.
93 OF 1992 Chhagan Bhujbal V. Smt.
really speaking, the charge against the candidate is the charge of implementing the plank as decided by the party In my view, in cases like this, where the plank has been declared by the leader of the party and the leader of the party has companyplete companytrol of the affairs of the party, once it is proved and held, that the plank declared by the leader amounts to a companyrupt practice, every candidate of that party will be bound by that plank As is set out hereafter, prima facie it does appear that the plank of Hindutva Hinduism, as declared by the leaders at these two meetings amounts to the companyrupt practice of appealing for votes in the name of the Hindu candidates religion and also amounts to the companyrupt practice of attempting to create enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens on the grounds of companymunity and religion, particularly between Hindus and Muslims It is this perception of Variava, J. which has companyoured his entire judgment and led to the decision of the election petition, number companyfined to the record of the case but extending to all the general impressions.
In respect of the same elections i.e. the elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held in February 1990, ten such petitions have been filed before this Court.
Admittedly the last date for filing the election petition according to the prescribed period of 45 days was 14.4.1990, but the High Court and its office were closed for holidays on 14th and 15th April, 1990 and reopened only on 16.4.1990.
94 of 1992 by Pramod Mahajan and Civil Appeal No.
Celine DSilva Anr.
The mode of resorting to these companyrupt practices have been by way of speeches made by the leaders of the two parties at the joint meetings held on 29th January, 1990 and 24th February, 1990, by use of offending poster, banners, wall writings and a video cassette Awahan and Avhan.
Those facts mentioned at the outset in the said order are as under Petition No.
All these petitions are based on a plank of Hindutva Hinduism alleged to have been adopted by these parties and allegedly declared by their leaders at the joint Public meetings held by these two parties on 29th January 1990 and 24th February 1990.
It may be mentioned that two remaining numberices Pramod Navalkar and Manohar Joshi had filed Civil Appeal No.
Acceptance of the numberinations of the candidates was on 8.2.1990, the date of poll was 27.2.1990 and the result of election was declared on 1.3.1990 at which Ramakant Mayekar was declared elected.
The numberices given to these persons related to certain speeches alleged to have been made by them on 29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990 which, it was alleged, companystituted companyrupt practices under Sections 123 3 and 123 3A of the R.P. Act.
JUDGMENT S. VERMA, J. This is an appeal by the returned candidate under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short the R.P. Act against the judgment dated 5th/6th August, 1991 in Election Petition No.
93 of 1992 by Chhagan Bhujbal, Civil Appeal No.
In the said order dated 6.1.1992, Variava, J. has mentioned certain facts in the background of which the objections to the numberices under Section 99 were companysidered in that order.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
94 OF 1992 Pramod Mahajan V. Smt.
Celine DSilva Anr.
The inquiry required to be made under Section 99 of the R.P. Act has number yet been made in the High Court against any of the numberices in view of the pendency of these appeals.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2396 OF 1992 Balasaheb Thackery V. Smt.
By the said judgment, the learned Judge has decided the election petition and made the order under Section 98 declaring the election of the appellant to be void but the findings on issue Nos.
An objection expressly taken to the validity of the numberices that they companyld number be issued after the election petition had been decided by making an order under Section 98 of the R.P. Act was rejected by order dated 6.1.1992.
795 of 1992 against rejection of their objections to the numberices but those appeals have been summarily dismissed on 19.8.1993 and 7.9.1993 apparently leaving open the question of validity of the numberices to be decided at a later stage.
21 of 1990 by N. Variava, J. of the Bombay High Court whereby the election of the appellant to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 49 Kurla Legislative Constituency held on 27.2.1990 has been declared to be void on the ground under Section 100 1 b for companymission of companyrupt practices under sub section 3 and 3A of the R.P. Act.
The election petition was filed on 16.4.1990.
149 of 1992 and Civil Appeal No.
The companynected Civil Appeal No.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
There is numberdispute at the hearing of these appeals that the case of all the five numberices has to be dealt with in the same manner depending on the final outcome of these appeals.
Celine DSilva Anr.
2396 of 1992 by Balasaheb Thackeray, are against the order dated 6.1.1992 passed by Variava, J. rejecting the objections of these numberices to the validity of numberice issued under Section 99 of the R.P. Act.
2 and 5 have been reserved for being recorded after the inquiry under Section 99 of the R.P. Act is companycluded against Chhagan Bhujbal, Pramod Mahajan, Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi and Pramod Navalkar to whom numberices have been issued under Section 99 of the R.P. Act by the order made therein.
21 of 1990 is number an individual Election Petition before this Court.
Variava, J. by his order dated 6.1.1992 rejected those objections.
All of these are against various successful candidates of Shiv Sena and Bharatiya Janata Party.
