GANPAT Vs. RETURNING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.