H.SURESH,J. - (1.)THE petitioner was a candidate of Janata Dal in the election held for the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 27th February 1990 from Constituency No. 33-Matunga Constituency. The respondent was a candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party hereinafter referred to as "b. J. P" ). She secured 31,530 votes while the petitioner secured 28,021 votes. He came third, inasmuch as, there was a Congress candidate who secured 28,426 votes. This petition is to challenge the election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices under sections 123 (3) and 123 (3a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as "act of 1951" ).
(2.)THE relevant portion of the petitioners case, in so far as, he sought to establish before me is this : hat there was an alliance between B. J. P and Shiv Sena during the last election for the Assembly seats and that they appealed to the voters on the basis of Hindu religion. The relevant facts are that there was a meeting of the said alliance on 29th January 1990 at Girgaon Chowpatty when the said alliance introduced all the candidates who were to contest from various Constituencies in the city of Bombay. In the said meeting, leaders of both the parties appealed to the voters to vote on the basis of Hindu religion or community. Similarly, on the eye of the election on 24th February 1990 there was a public meeting at Shivaji Park when again all the candidates were present. That meeting was also addressed by the leaders of both the parties. Against the appeal was on the basis of Hindutva. In between there were two meetings - one on 8th February 1990 and the other on 15th February, 1990, both within the Constituency of Matunga addressed by the respondent and certain other leaders of both the parties, again, inter alia, on the same plank. Hence the charge as mentioned above.
In the written-statement, the meetings are not denied. But the contention is that there was no alliance but only an understanding between the two parties to avoid multi-corner contests and to defeat Congress i ). The further contention is that the respondent contested on her own partys programmes and manifesto. I will deal with the relevant pleadings when I discuss the evidence hereunder.

(3.)THE following issues were framed :1. Whether the respondent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951; as alleged in the petition ? 2. Whether the Election Agent or any other agent of the respondent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition ? 3. Whether any other person with the consent of the respondent and/or his Election Agent has committed any of corrupt practice as defined in section 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition ? 4. Whether the respondent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 3a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition ? 5. Whether the Election Agent or any other agent of the respondent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 3a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition ? 6. Whether any other person with the consent of the respondent and/or his Election Agent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 (3a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition ? 7. Whether the respondent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition ? 8. Whether the Election Agent or any other agent of the respondent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition? 9. Whether any other person with the consent of the respondent and/or his Election Agent has committed any of the corrupt practices as defined in section 123 (2) of the Representation Act, 1951 as alleged in the petition ? 10. And Generally.