RAMKRISHNA SURYABHAN GAVAI AND ANOTHER Vs. KRISHNARAO GULABRAO DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners have filed this Election Petition to challenge the election of the respondent No. 1, Krishnarao Gulabrao Deshmukh, to the House of the People from the Amravati Parliamentary Constituency No. 19 in the last General Elections held in Feb. 1967.

(2.) There is a duly constituted Parliamentary Constituency located in the Amravati district of the State of Maharashtra for electing one representative to the House of the People. This Parliamentary Constituency consists of six Legislative Assembly Constituencies of the Amravati district, including those of Amravati and Chandur Railway. The Parliamentary as well as the Legislative Assembly Constituencies included therein, went to the polls on 15th Feb. 1967 for the purposes of the General Elections ordered by the Election Commission of India. The Collector, Amravati, who was also the Returning Officer of the Amravati Parliamentary Constituency, published a notice of the programme of election. The last date of filing nomination papers was 20th Jan. 1967 till 3 p.m., and the nomination papers were to be scrutinised on 21st January. The date of withdrawal was 23rd Jan. and the date of polling was 15th February. Votes were to be counted on 22nd Feb. and the result was to be declared on 23rd Feb. 1967.

(3.) The petitioner No. 1, Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gavai, the respondent No. 1, Krishnarao Gulabrao Deshmukh, the respondent No. 2 Devidas Vishwanath Khedkar and five other persons had filed their nomination papers. The nomination paper, Ex. 20, of the respondent No. 2 was presented by him to the Returning Officer on 19th Jan. 1967 but it did not bear his signature on that portion of the nomination paper which was to be filled in by the candidate. The respondent No. 2 also signed the oath of allegiance, Ex. 21, in the presence of the Returning Officer on 19th Jan. 1967. On the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, all the candidates, except the respondent No. 2 or his agent, were present. None of the other candidates raised any objection to the nomination paper of the respondent No. 2, but the Returning Officer, on his own motion, rejected that nomination paper on the ground that there was no signature of the respondent No. 2 on that part of the nomination paper in which the assent of the candidate and the declaration of age and other particulars have to be mentioned. The Returning Officer also rejected the nomination paper of one Bhagwant Mahadeo Sangitrao on the ground that he had not deposited the sum of Rs. 500 as required by section 34 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, as a condition precedent for his eligibility to contest the election. After the rejection of the nomination papers of the respondent No. 2 Devidas, and of Bhagwant Sangitrao, the remaining six candidates went to the polls. As a result of the counting of votes, the respondent No 1, who had secured the largest number of votes, was declared elected. These facts were specifically accepted before me by the parties and represented the common ground between them.