- (1.)THIS petition relates to the election of the respondent No. 1 to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the "dhule Local Authority Constituency" held in the month of December, 1997. Suffice it would be to narrate that the voting was scheduled on 29th December, 1997 and the result was declared on 31st December, 1997. Alongwith the present petitioner, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were the contesting candidates in the said election. The respondent No. 1 is declared elected in that election. It is this election of the respondent No. 1 which is the subject matter of challenge in this present election petition.
(2.)THE core point for decision in the election petition is regarding the disqualification of the respondent No. 1 from contesting the election under section 9-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purposes of brevity ). The petitioners contention is that on the date of submission of nomination paper by the respondent No. 1 as also on the date of voting the respondent No. 1 was having a subsisting contract with the Government for transportation of foodgrains, oil, pulses, salt, tea and other articles of essential commodities through his business of transportation which he was running in the name and style "new Ram Road Lines, Nandurbar". This contract was in pursuance of the notice dated July 3rd, 1997, issued by the District Collector, Dhule, under the authority from the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the Government of Maharashtra. In view of this, according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was disqualified to contest the aforesaid election.
(3.)AT this stage, it is necessary to refer to certain dates for the purpose of Present election petition and particularly for the point under consideration. The election petition was filed on 13th February, 1998. When the election petition came before the Court on 17th June, 1998 an order was passed by the Court to issue summons to the respondent for filing written statement and for settlement of the issues which was made returnable on July 10th, 1998. The respondent No. 2 was duly served. However, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not be served as they were said to be out of station at that time. The information to that effect was received by the registry of this Court at 12-15 p. m. on 10th July, 1998. Though the summons could not served on the respondents Nos. 1 and 3, however, return of copies of notices were yet awaited. Hence an order came to be passed "await Report" and the matter was directed to be placed on 4th August, 1998. Since the notices were returned, which were sent through the Court as well as through registered post acknowledgement due and since the remark of the postal department was there as "not claimed returned to the sender", the petitioner was directed to serve the unserved respondents under the provisions of Order 5, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was directed to be placed before the Court on 25th August, 1998.