Such application was filed by Shri Bhagwat for substituting his name as the Election Petitioner in place of Shri Yadavrao, despite the fact that he had neither filed any numberination paper, number companytested the election.
While the Election Petition was pending hearing, on 25th November, 2010, Shri Yadavrao filed an application for withdrawal of the Election Petition filed by him.
After hearing Shri Yadavrao in person, the High Court recorded the fact that the Election Petitioner was numberlonger interested in the Election Petition and wanted to withdraw the same.
On 1st October, 2009, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of the Returning Officer.
His election was challenged by one Shri Yadavrao, son of Bhimrao Suryawanshi, who was also a Scheduled Caste candidate.
The order of the High Court was challenged by the Election Commissioner before this Honbble Court, in which numberice was issued and the impugned judgment was stayed.
Accordingly, the Returning Officer found Shri Yadavrao to be ineligible to companytest the said elections as a candidate.
The elections were companyducted on 22nd October, 2009, and the Appellant herein was declared elected from the said Constituency.
In order to companytest the elections, the said Shri Yadavrao had filed three numberination forms which were all rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the proposerbs name was number included in the votersb list.
Shri Yadavrao challenged the Appellantbs election by way of Election Petition No.5 of 2009 filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on 1st December, 2009.
Consequently, Shri Yadavraobs name was number included in the ballot paper and he was unable to companytest the elections.
On 26th September, 2009, Shri Yadavrao filed Writ Petition No.6474 of 2009, challenging the rejection of his numberination form which had been submitted by him as an independent candidate.
On the said materials, the High Court allowed the application filed by Shri Yadvrao, particularly when numbercorrupt practice had been alleged in the Election Petition.
The present appeal is directed against the said order of the High Court allowing the application for substitution filed by Shri Bhagwat in the Election Petition which had been filed by Shri Yadavrao and had also been allowed to be withdrawn.
The Election Petition was, therefore, disposed of as withdrawn.
Within 14 days of the said order having been passed, on 8th December, 2010, the present Respondent, Bhagwat, son of Maruti Danane, filed Civil Application No.35 of 2010 under Section 110 3 c of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the b1951 Actb, in Election Petition No.5 of 2009, which had been disposed of as withdrawn, for substituting his name as Election Petitioner in place of Shri Yadavrao.
At that point of time, there was numberpending application from any person wanting to be substituted in place of the Election Petitioner, Shri Yadavrao son of Bhimrao Suryawanshi.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
The Appellant herein was elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the 240 Omerga Legislative Assembly Constituency, which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
