Alagiriswami, J. - (1.) In the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held in March 1972 to fill up a seat from the North Nagpur constituency reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes the 2nd respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an election petition questioning the election. That petition having been dismissed by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
(2.) In that election as many as 19 persons filed their nomination papers. Nine of them withdrew leaving respondents 2 to 10 and the appellant in the held. One of them who withdrew was the 11th respondent, Ranjit Meshram, with whom we will have to deal later. In 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. It is unnecessary to refer to the other respondents or the votes obtained by them because the arguments before this Court have been confined to respondents 2, 6 and 9. As many as 14 issues were framed for decision of which, as far as the arguments before this Court are concerned, only issues 9 and 10 survive. They are set out below: "9. (a) Was the notice of withdrawal (document No. 5) tendered by the respondent No. 11 to the Returning Officer a valid one (b) Did the notice of withdrawal (document No. 6) tendered by Shri S. P. Ukey in the prescribed form cure the defect, if any, in the notice of withdrawal (document No. 6) (c) Can these notices be said to be legally tendered as required by Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (d) If not, its effect (e) Has the acceptance of the withdrawal of the respondent No. 11 materially changed the election results 10. (a) Are the respondents 2 and 4 to 10 converts to Buddhism and have they embraced and professed Buddhism and ceased to be Hindus (b) If so, were they eligible to contest the election from the Reserved Constituency (c) If not eligible, what is the effect (d) Did the candidature of the respondent No 6, if he was disqualified on account of the conversion to Buddhism, materially affect and alter the election results (e) What is the effect of not raising the objection about the eligibility of the candidate at the time of scrutiny of the nominations - It may be necessary to notice issue 13 also because the appellant had prayed not only for setting aside the election of the 2nd respondent but also for his being declared elected from the constituency. Issue 9 relates to the question of withdrawal by Ranjit Meshram to whom reference has already been made. Issue 10 relates to the question as to whether respondents 2 and 4 to 10 could be said to be members of the Scheduled Castes so as to be eligible to stand for election from this constituency. Though in the petition the question was raised about respondents 2 and 4 to 10, even in the High Court only the question relating to respondents 2, 6 and 9 was considered. Before this Court Dr. Singhvi appealing for the appellant concentrated his attention regarding the case of respondents 2 and 6 and preferred to leave the case of respondent 9 alone. This is because next to the respondent 2 and the appellant, respondent 6 has got the largest number of votes. Even the question regarding respondent 6 is only important from the point of view of the prayer in the election petition for declaring the appellant elected after setting aside the election of the 2nd respondent. If the 2nd respondent is found not to belong to a Scheduled Caste no further question will survive. It is only if the 2nd respondent is found to belong to a Scheduled Caste that the question whether respondent 6 also is or is not a member of a Scheduled Caste and the appellant could be declared elected would arise at all. We shall first deal with issue 10 because that is concerned with the most important question.
(3.) We must first of all notice the fact that when the nominations were scrutinized the appellant did not object to the nomination papers of respondents 2, 6 and 9 being accepted on the ground that they were not members of the Scheduled Castes. Though legally there is no bar to the appellant raising that question in the election petition questioning the election of the 2nd respondent his allegation that respondents 2, 6 and 9 are not members of the Scheduled Castes would be considerably weakened because of his failure to object at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers. All the candidates belong to the Nagpur City and all of them belong to the Scheduled Castes, ignoring for the present the question whether they were Buddhists. Respondents 2, 6 and 9 are not ordinary members of the Scheduled Castes. Respondent 2 is a doctor married to another doctor and practicing in Nagpur City. He sees 60 to 70 patients daily. Respondent 6 is an advocate and as is seen from the result he is popular enough to get 16,123 votes and his wife is a doctor. Respondent 9 is also a doctor. They must, therefore, be well-known figures in Nagpur or at least among members of the Scheduled Castes. The appellant should certainly have known them personally or at least heard of them. He should have also heard whether they were Hindus or Buddhists. He must have known about their political activity. This is one point of view from which the evidence let in on behalf of the appellant should be considered.;