Raveendran, J. - (1.) This appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [for short the Act] is by the returned candidate against the judgment dated 31-8-2004 passed by the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 2002 filed by the first respondent herein.
(2.) Notice of Election dated 29-5-2002 was given by the Returning Officer in respect of an election to be held to elect a member to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from Aurangabad Division Graduates Constituency. As per calendar, the last date for filing nominations was 5-6-2002, the scrutiny of nomination papers was taken up on 6-6-2002 and the poll was held on 23-6-2002. The appellant, who was one of the candidates, was declared elected on 26-6-2002. On 9-8-2002, the first respondent, one of the rival candidates, filed Election Petition No. 1/2002 in the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the election of the appellant under sections 9-A, 98, 100 (1) (a) and (d) and 101(1)(a) of the Act.
(3.) In the said election petition, the first respondent alleged that the appellant was a government contractor carrying on business under the trade name of M/s. Precision Press Fabricon at Aurangabad. He further alleged that the appellant had entered into three contracts with the State Government, in the course of his business for execution of works undertaken by the appropriate Government, and such contracts were subsisting, on the date of filing of nomination/scrutiny of the nomination papers/declaration of result [in June, 2002]. The said contracts were : a) Contract as per work order dated 19-5-1996 issued by the Executive Engineer, Medium Project Irrigation Division, Latur, for the work of designing, fabricating, and erecting the Automatic stilt doors at the canal of Tawarja Project. b) Contract as per work order dated 31-12-1998 issued by the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Works Division No.2, Latur, for execution of the work relating to water supply scheme in ten villages surrounding Pangaon. c) Contract as per work order dated 12-4-1999 issued by the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran for the work relating to water supply scheme, Stage-II Taluk Geora, District Beed. The first respondent contended that Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran is part and parcel of the State Government and therefore, contracts with the said Pradhikaran are in effect contracts with the State Government. First Respondent contended that as these three contracts (the first with the State Government and the other two with Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran) were subsisting in June, 2002, the appellant was disqualified for being chosen as a Member of Legislative Council, under section 9A of the Act. ;