Bombay High Court Hears Election Petition Alleging Disqualification and Corrupt Practices in Goa Assembly Election. Petition Challenges Election of Returned Candidate on Grounds of Holding Office of Profit as Chairman of Government Corporation and Inducement of Voters Through Distribution of Pension Cheques.

Election petition under Section 100(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of a returned candidate on grounds of disqualification and corrupt practices.

The petitioner sought a declaration that the election of the respondent is void, and that the petitioner be declared duly elected.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent held an office of profit as Chairman of a government corporation and committed corrupt practices during the election, thus his election is invalid.

Whether the Petitioner proves that the Respondent No.1 being the Chairman of the Goa State Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. was holding an office of profit under the State Government on the date of Election to 25-Vasco-da-Gama Constituency? Whether the Petitioner proves that the respondent has committed corrupt practices as enumerated in para 14 clauses (a) to (f) of the petition? Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled to be declared as duly elected? What relief? What Order?

Petitioner argued that the respondent was disqualified because he held the position of Chairman of the Corporation, an office of profit under the government. Petitioner argued that the respondent personally distributed pension cheques to induce voters and sanctioned a loan in violation of the Model Code of Conduct, amounting to corrupt practices. Respondent denied that he held an office of profit, contending that the position did not disqualify him. Respondent denied the corrupt practices allegations, stating that the grant of loan was part of his duty as Chairman and not a violation of the Code of Conduct, and that the cheque distribution did not constitute inducement.

The petitioner herein is one of the defeated candidates while the respondent No.1 ("respondent", for short) is the returned candidate at the elections held on 30.5.02 to the 25-Vasco-da-Gama Assembly Constituency in the State of Goa. The respondent was appointed as a Chairman of the said Corporation by the Government by Order No.13-4-90/SWD/Part dated 9.2.2000 and published on Gazette dated 9.3.2000 - Exh.61 in exercise of the powers conferred under Cause 116 of the Articles of Association of the said Corporation. The following issues were framed by this Court after hearing he learned counsel on behalf of both the parties :- (1) Whether the Petitioner proves that the Respondent No.1 being the Chairman of the Goa State Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. was holding an office of profit under the State Government on the date of Election to 125-Vasco-da-Gama Constituency? (2) Whether the Petitioner proves that the respondent has committed corrupt practices as enumerated in para 14 clauses (a) to (f) of the petition? (3) Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled to be declared as duly elected? (4) What relief? What Order?

Election to 25-Vasco-da-Gama Assembly Constituency, Goa, held on 30.05.2002. The respondent was declared as the returned candidate. The petitioner, a defeated candidate, filed Election Petition No. 2 of 2002 under Section 100(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the election on grounds of disqualification and corrupt practices. Issues were framed after hearing counsel. Evidence was recorded from witnesses. The judgment was delivered on 27.05.2005 (text provided ends mid-trial, final order not mentioned).

• Representation of the People Act, 1951: 100(1)(a), 100(1)(b)