GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT Vs. DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE
LAWS(SC)-1995-7-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on July 18,1995

GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT Appellant
VERSUS
DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JEET MOHINDER SINGH VS. HARMINDER SINGH JASSI [LAWS(SC)-1999-10-82] [REFERRED]
SEEMA SACHAN VS. AJEET SINGH PAL [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
MANAS BHUNIA VS. MAKHAN LAL BANGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1999-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
RENU CHADHA VS. ASHA KUMARI [LAWS(HPH)-2000-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-357] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHAI VS. SANJU [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-302] [REFERRED TO]
CONGREGATION OF ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH PRANTHANERY VS. INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-256] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PHAL KUNDU VS. KAMAL SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
P C THOMAS VS. P M ISMAIL [LAWS(SC)-2009-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
DR. NAROTTAM MISHRA VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-232] [REFERRED TO]
MS. STEPI CHAUDHREE D/O SHRI MUKUND BABU VS. KRISHNA KUMAR S/O SHRI DAMODAR SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-180] [REFERRED TO]
K MURALEEDHARAN VS. V V RAGHAVAN [LAWS(KER)-1999-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
K MURALEEDHARAN VS. V V RAGHAVAN [LAWS(KER)-1999-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED RIYAS P A VS. RAGHAVAN M K [LAWS(KER)-2010-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
P POOKUNHI KOYA VS. MUHAMMED HAMDULLAH SAYED [LAWS(KER)-2010-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
L R SHIVARAMAGOWDA VS. T M CHANDRASHEKAR [LAWS(SC)-1998-12-83] [RELIED ON]
V S ACHUTHANANDAN VS. P J FRANCIS [LAWS(SC)-1999-3-137] [REFERRED]
AUTHORITY VS. SHYAMDEO PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-2010-5-207] [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAO VS. BASAVARAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2010-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
RUPDHAR PUDO VS. BHOJRAJ NAG & ORS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARLAL BHAGWANDAS PUROHIT VS. VILAS MUTTEMWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-249] [REFERRED]
TUKARAM S DIGHOLE VS. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
C R MAHESH VS. R RAMACHANDAN [LAWS(KER)-2017-10-212] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI LAL KHANT VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-12-137] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH MANN VS. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [LAWS(SC)-2008-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
M CHANDRA VS. M THANGAMUTHU [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
GADDAM BUCHANA VS. M RAJAGOPALA CHARY [LAWS(APH)-2007-12-83] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH RATHORE VS. T.RAIA SINOH [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
RABINARAYAN DAS VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
SENTHILBALAJI V. VS. A.P. GEETHA [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
GURMESH BISHNOI VS. SH BHAJAN LAL M L A [LAWS(P&H)-1997-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA BABBAR VS. SH. O.P. BABBAR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
A. KRISHNAN VS. T.P.R. SELVAME AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-461] [REFERRED TO]
V AROUMUGAM A K D VS. N RANGASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-160] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH GUPTA VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
BADDAM BALREDDY VS. SULTAN SALAHUDDIN OWAISI [LAWS(APH)-1997-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP BURAGOHAIN VS. PRANATI PHUKAN [LAWS(GAU)-2008-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL S S VS. HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR [LAWS(BOM)-1996-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
Y. VIKHEHO SWU VS. SUKHATO A.SEMA (DR.) [LAWS(GAU)-2019-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAKUMAR KHANDRE VS. PRAKASH KHANDRE [LAWS(KAR)-2001-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJIRAO B PATIL KAWEKAR VS. VILASRAO D DESHMUKH [LAWS(SC)-1999-12-37] [RELIED]
T.V.BALAN VS. K.M.SHAJI [LAWS(KER)-2018-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
V M SINGH VS. FEROZE VARUN GANDHI [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SINGH LODHI VS. CHANDA DEVI [LAWS(MPH)-2014-7-390] [REFERRED TO]
YELGAONKAR DILIP MURLIDHAR VS. GUDAGE MOHANRAO PANDURANG [LAWS(BOM)-2000-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
INDERKAUR GURUCHARANSINGH RAGI VS. HANMANTRAO SAYANNA BATTIN [LAWS(BOM)-1996-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVRAO S/O BHUJANGRAO KINHALKAR, VS. ASHOK S/O SHANKARRAO CHAVAN [LAWS(BOM)-2012-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVINDRAO PATIL VS. THE MAHARASHTRA ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
INDER SINGH VS. RANGILA RAM RAO [LAWS(HPH)-2004-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
NATHURAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
ANITHA RADHAKRISHNAN VS. PR. MANOHARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
C MANIYAMMA VS. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE NARAYANAPET DIST MAHABOOBNAGAR [LAWS(APH)-1998-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
V NARAYANASWAMY VS. C P THIRUNAVUKKARASU [LAWS(SC)-2000-1-14] [RELIED]
HOULIM SHOKHOPAO MATE VS. LORHO S. PFOZE [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
ADAN SINGH VS. SUKH EARN [LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
ANTAR SINGH DARBAR VS. KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-163] [REFERRED TO]
BORGARAM DEURI VS. PREMODHAR BORA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
S SHIVASHANKAR PRASAD VS. D A GOPALA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NAFIS VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-185] [REFERRED TO]
K H SRINIVASA VS. K S ESHWARAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1995-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
UMLESH YADAV VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH SONI VS. NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU [LAWS(P&H)-2010-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
PUTTA MADHUKAR VS. DUDDILLA SRIHDAR ALIAS DUDDULLA SRIDHAR BABU [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAMACHANDRAN VS. E.V. VELU & OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMESH VS. N S J JAYABAL @ AYYANAR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-171] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTRAO NARAYAN THOPTE VS. KASHINATH PARVATI KHUTWAD [LAWS(BOM)-2000-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S DIGHOLE VS. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
NAND SINGH VS. AJIT INDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1999-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN AND ANR VS. SHANTILAL BHAGCHAND KOCHETA JAIN & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-157] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDHAN MEENA VS. BHAJAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-288] [REFERRED TO]
PALODE RAVI VS. MANGODE RADHAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2003-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHID HUSAIN VS. M HAMID UDDIN [LAWS(ALL)-1952-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PANCHAMRAO KHOPADE VS. SATISH JHAULAL CHATURVEDI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-211] [REFERRED TO]
P ANGALANE VS. B KOBIGA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-167] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDAGOPAN K. VS. ANTO ANTONY [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-816] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. JANMEJA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1999-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
UMABALLAV RATH VS. MAHESWAR MOHANTY [LAWS(ORI)-1997-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2001-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
M P KESHAVA MURTHY VS. A NARAYANASWAMY [LAWS(KAR)-2000-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AKBAR S/O MOHAMMAD RASHID VS. ASHOK SAHU S/O PURUSHOTTAM SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-24] [REFERRED]
BORGARAM DEURI VS. PREMODDHAR BORA [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR CHOBEY VS. MADAN [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-266] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. RAM RATAN [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DASS VS. THAKUR DASS [LAWS(DLH)-2000-1-58] [RELIED [PARA 16]]
VIJAY SOMANI VS. CAPT AJAY SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2001-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
HARCHARAN SINGH BRAR VS. SUKHDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2003-7-182] [REFERRED TO]
SINGH SHAMSHER RAMBAHAL VS. ELECTION COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK TIWARI VS. DIVYARAJ SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2016-2-135] [REFERRED]
AJAY KUMAR DOHAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-280] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP CHOUDHARY VS. SURENDRA GOYAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-5-29] [REFERRED]
VARDALLY BUCHI RAMULU VS. RAMREDDY DAMODHAR REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1996-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
MANAK CHAND NOGIA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
S. KUMARAVEL VS. S.V. SUKUMARAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-462] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KUMAR DHANDU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI VS. KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-8-134] [REFERRED TO]
AZAMBHAI FAKHIRBHAI PANSARE VS. GAJANAN DHARAMSHI BABAR [LAWS(BOM)-2000-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
R THIRUMAVALAVAN VS. SUMATHI UDAYAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR NATH VS. MISBAHUL ISLAM LASKAR [LAWS(GAU)-2017-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. NEIPHREZO KEDITSU S/O KENEILHOULIE VS. SMT. ZENEISIILE ATE LOUCII, W/O LHOUTUO LOUCI [LAWS(GAU)-2016-5-146] [REFERRED TO]
RENU DEVI VS. MAHENDRA SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2003-2-3] [REFERRRED TO]
HANUMAN SINGH VS. ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-2-1] [REFFERED TO : (1995) 5 SCC 347 : 1995 AIR SCW 3407 12,15]
SAMBHAJI S/O LAXMANRAO PAWAR AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O HOUSE NO 1383 PHULE NAGAR NANDED DISTRICT NANDED VS. BHASKARRAO S/O BAPURAO KHATGAONKAR PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2011-4-115] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ANAND - (1.)THIS appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by two electors is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the election petition. The returned candidate has also filed cross objections challenging those findings which have gone against him. Both shall be disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)THE appellants filed an election petition under S.80 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No. 1, Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, the returned candidate from 23 Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency in the elections held for the Xth Lok Sabha and also sought a declaration to the effect that respondent No.2 Shri Banwarilal Bhagwandas Purohit be declared as the duly elected candidate from the said Constituency after setting aside the election of the returned candidate. THE challenge to the election of respondent No.1 was mainly based on the allegations of commission of various corrupt practices by him and/or his election agent detailed in the petition.
Appellant No. 1 was at the relevant time the Vice President of Bhartiya Janta Party (Nagpur City) Nagpur while appellant No.2 was a worker of the Bhartiya Janta Party. Respondent No. 2, Shri Banwarilal Bhagwandas Purohit, the defeated candidate had been sponsored as a candidate by the Bhartiya Janta Party while respondent No.1 Datta Raghobaji Meghe, the returned candidate, had been sponsored by Congress (I). Besides respondents 1 and 2, the other candidates, who had contested the election and had not withdrawn their candidatures from the contest, numbering more than forty two were also joined as respondents to the election petition.

The main case of the appellants projected before the High Court and canvassed before us against the returned candidate was that the expenditure incurred or authorised by respondent No.1 or his election agent was much more than what had been disclosed by him in the return of expenditure lodged under S.78 of the Act with the District Election Officer and that huge expenditure incurred by him in connection with his election had been suppressed. It was further alleged that though the expenditure incurred in connection with the election of respondent No.1 was shown to have been incurred by the political party, some other sympathetic associations, organisations, individuals, friends and well wisher, the said expenditure in fact had been incurred and/or authorised by respondent No. 1 and/or his election agent and the amount spent by those organisations had been provided out of the funds made available by respondent No. 1 to those parties for making the payment and their names were given only to conceal the truth of the transactions so as to escape from the mischief of S.123(6) of the Act. It was placed that some of the organisations under whose names the advertisements had appeared, were in fact non existent and that the individuals who were shown ostensibly to have incurred some expenditure for furtherance of the prospects of the election of respondent No. 1, had actually no funds of their own to spend and respondent No. 1 had placed his own funds in their hands to meet the expenditure. According to the appellants, the expenditure incurred by respondent No. 1 was far in excess of the limit prescribed by S.77 of the Act read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 (hereinafter the 'Rules') and the return of election expenditure did not reflect the correct state of affairs. Since respondent No. 1 had exceeded the prescribed limit of expense, he was guilty of committing the corrupt practice under S.123(6) of the Act and his election was, therefore, liable to be declared void and respondent No. 1 also disqualified for committing the corrupt practice.

(3.)RESPONDENT No. 1 before filing his written statement raised a preliminary objection, through Ex.16 and Ex.17 to the effect that the allegations made in the petition were vague and that material facts and particulars had not been supplied and as such the vague pleadings were liable to be stuck off and the election petition rejected under S.81(3) read with S.86 of the Act. On 29-10-1991, however, Ex. 16 was rejected while application Ex.17 was allowed to the extent that the allegations made in the petition regarding the commission of corrupt practice under S.123(2) and (3A) were found to be vague and non specific and the pleadings in that connection were directed to be stuck off. Against the order of rejection of the preliminary objection raised in Ex.16, respondent No. 1 preferred a special leave petition being SLP(C) No. 19165-66/91 in this Court which was dismissed on 20/12/1991 by the following order :-
"The special leave petition is dismissed. However, this order will not prevent him from raising objections, which are available to him according to law, when the evidence is made on the relevant allegations".

Subsequently, an application, Ex.27, filed by the appellants for leave to amend the election petition for correcting certain in advertant "errors, omissions and slips" was allowed on 28-11-1991 and the necessary corrections were carried out in the election petition. Again an application Ex.47/A filed by the appellants seeking further amendment of the verification clause of the petition was allowed by the Court on 18-1-1992, after an earlier application. Ex.44, filed by the appellants seeking amendment of the election petition had been allowed on 18-12-1991.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.