9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Excessive election expenditure. 2. Threats and intimidation of voters. 3. Non-joinder of a necessary party. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Excessive Election Expenditure: The appellant challenged the respondent's election on the ground that the respondent, or his election agent, incurred or authorized expenditure exceeding the Rs. 35,000 limit prescribed under Section 77(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The appellant alleged that the respondent's use of helicopters and motor vehicles was not fully accounted for in the election expenses submitted to the Election Commission. The court, however, found against the appellant on this issue, as the evidence presented did not substantiate the claims of excessive expenditure. 2. Threats and Intimidation of Voters: The appellant alleged that the respondent's workers, with his consent, threatened and intimidated voters to prevent them from voting for the Congress candidate, Shri Deorao Krishnarao Jadhav. Specific instances were cited, including an allegation that Congress worker Shri Mohan Prasad Ojha was threatened at pistol point. The respondent denied these allegations, claiming they were vague and lacked material particulars. The court found the allegations unsubstantiated and ruled against the appellant on this issue as well. 3. Non-joinder of a Necessary Party: The respondent filed an application arguing that the election petition should be dismissed due to the non-joinder of Shri Shiv Pratap Singh, a candidate against whom corrupt practice was alleged. The court considered whether the allegations in Para 11(iv) of the petition constituted a charge of corrupt practice against Shiv Pratap Singh. The court concluded that the allegations did indeed amount to a charge of corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Act. Since Shiv Pratap Singh was not joined as a respondent, the petition was deemed fatally defective under Section 82(b) and Section 86 of the Act, leading to its dismissal. Conclusion: The court upheld the dismissal of the election petition on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party, as well as on the merits of the issues of excessive expenditure and threats and intimidation. The appeal was disallowed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition.
|
