L. Sanghi, S. B. Wad, B. U. Wahano and Jayashree Wad, for respondent No.
M. Singhvi, M. C. Rajkarna,S. N. Ponikar, A. G. Maneses, J. John and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
6, if he was disqualified on account of the companyversion to Buddhism, materially affect and after the election results ?
L. Hathi and M. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos.
21 and 22.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th November, 1972 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Election Petition No.
It is unnecessary to refer to the other respondents or the votes obtained by them because the argument before this Court have been companyfined to respondents 2, 6 and 9.
70 stands unrebutted.
At many as 14 issues were framed for decision of which, as far as the arguments before this Court are companycerned, only issues 9 and 1 survive.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. In the election to the Maharashtra Legis lative Assembly held in March 1972 to fill up a seat from the North Nagpur companystituency reserved for members of the Scheduled Caste, the 2nd respondent was declared elected.
He is number able to remember clearly the circumstances under which he made the endorse ment in Ext.
The appellant filed an election petition questioning the election.
It may be necessary to numberice issue 13 also because the appellant had prayed number only for setting aside the election of the 2nd respondent but also for his being declared elected from the companystituency.
But his evidence that be knew Ranjit Meshram and that Ranjit Meshram himself gave the withdrawal letter Ext.
69 that it was given by Ranjit Meshram.
That petition having been dismissed by the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
In that election as many as 19 persons filed their numberination papers.
It the election the 2nd respondent obtained 22,993 votes, the appellant obtained 21,135 votes, the 6th respondent obtained 16,123 votes and the 9th respondent 2,590 votes.
Nine of them withdrew leaving respondents 2 to 10 and the appellant in the field.
As regards Ext.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
One of them who withdrew was the 11th respondent, Ranjit Mesbram, with whom we will have to deal later.
1 of 1972.
Can these numberices be said to lie legally tendered as required by section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ?
348 of 1973.
What is the effect of number raising the objection about the eligibility of the candidate at the time of scrutiny of the numberinations ?
5 tendered by the respondent No.
69, of companyrse, he is number quite sure.
Has the acceptance of the withdrawal of the respondent No.
If number, its effect ?
They are set out below 9.
Did the candidature of the respondent No.
If number eligible, what is the effect ?
a Are the respondents 2 and 4 to IO companyverts to Buddhism and have they embraced and professed Buddhism and ceased to be Hindus If so, were they eligible to companytest the election from the Reserve Constituency ?
11 to the Returning officer a valid one ?
11 materially changed the election results ?
