# RAMAKANT MA YEKAR ETC. ETC v. SMT. CELINE D' SILVA - **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 492 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1995-12-11 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 1991 - **Bench:** J.S. Verma, N.P. Singh, K. Venkataswami - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramakant-ma-yekar-etc-etc-v-smt-celine-d-silva-13646 - **Pages:** 23 ## Headnote c D Election Law : Representation of the People Act, 1951 : Sections 81(1) and 86-Election petition-To be filed within a period of 45 days-Last date of limitation period a holiday-f'etition filed on the reopening day-Held: Section JO of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable and petition was filed within time. Section 79(b )-Election-Conupt practice-Speeches made by a person prior to the date of his becoming a candidate-Have to be excluded for consideration. Sections 98, 99 and 100( l)(b )-Election Trial-Naming other persons who could be found guilty of comtpt practice-Notice-Issuance of-Held : E Court cannot first decide the election petition declaring the election of the retumed candidate void and then proceed to issue notices. Sections 81 and 83-£lection Petition-Pleadings-Conupt practice-- Documents to be annexetf-Photographs of wall paintings-Contents or fomz of the wall paintings not pleaded-Neither annexed nor copy fumishetf-Video F cassettes or its transcript-Neither produced nor copy fumished-Held: pleadings wholly deficient to constitute conupt practice, are insufficient to raise a triable issue and was liable to be struck out-Any evidence adduced later would be irrelevant and inadntissible. G Sections 99 and JOO (l)(b)-Election petition-Conupt practice-Appeal on ground of religion-Issuance of notice-Election meeting-Speeches by other persons-Retumed candidate's presence not provetf-Held : elemem of candidate's consent which is a constituent part of the conupt practice not proved and issuance of notice did not arise. H Sections 83, lOO(l)(b), 123(3) and 123(3-A)-Electioa petition-Cor492 • , ' • RAMAKANT MA YEKAR v. CELINE D' S!LV A 493 rupt practice-Pleadings-Vicarious liability of candidate for an act of other A persons-Must be pleaded and proved-Speeches made by other persons-Consent of the candidate-Cannot be assumed merely from the fact that he belonged to the same political pany--Roving inquiry into the affairs of a political party not permissible. Sections IOO(l)(b), 123(3) and (3-A)-<:orrupt practic~Appeal on ground of religion-Mention of "Hindutva" in election speeches, wall paintings and video cassettes-Did not amount to appeal for votes on the ground of Hindu Religioir-''Hindutva''-Use made of-Depended upon the context and the composition of the audience-Mere mention of religion in election campaign not a corrupt practice. General Clauses Act, 1897 : Section 1{}-Applicable to election petition under Representation of People Act, 1951. Words and Phrases : "Hindutva'LMeaning of The appellant's election to the State Legislative Assembly was declared void by the High Court under Section lOO(l)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for commission of corrupt practices under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of the R.P. Act. Simultaneously notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act. have been issued to five persons on the basis of speeches alleged to have been made by them on 29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990, wall paintings and video cassettes under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the R.P. Act. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the election petition was not filed within time and was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the R.P. Act; that issuance of notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act B c D E F on the basis of speeches made after deciding the election petition was illegal; and that the mention of "Hindutva" in speeches, wall paintings and G video cassettes did no~ amount to appeal for votes on the ground of Hindu Religion. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Acceptance of the nominations of the candidates was on H 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A 8.2.1990, the date of poll was 27.2.1990 and the result of election was declared on 13.1990 at which the appellant was declared elected. The election petition was filed on 16.4.1990. Admittedly the last date for filing the election petition accor ## Text _Characters 0–39,979 of 54,935. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39979 for what follows._ A RAMAKANT MA YEKAR ETC. ETC. v. SMT. CELINE D' SILVA DECEMBER 11, 1995 B [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] c D Election Law : Representation of the People Act, 1951 : Sections 81(1) and 86-Election petition-To be filed within a period of 45 days-Last date of limitation period a holiday-f'etition filed on the reopening day-Held: Section JO of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable and petition was filed within time. Section 79(b )-Election-Conupt practice-Speeches made by a person prior to the date of his becoming a candidate-Have to be excluded for consideration. Sections 98, 99 and 100( l)(b )-Election Trial-Naming other persons who could be found guilty of comtpt practice-Notice-Issuance of-Held : E Court cannot first decide the election petition declaring the election of the retumed candidate void and then proceed to issue notices. Sections 81 and 83-£lection Petition-Pleadings-Conupt practice-- Documents to be annexetf-Photographs of wall paintings-Contents or fomz of the wall paintings not pleaded-Neither annexed nor copy fumishetf-Video F cassettes or its transcript-Neither produced nor copy fumished-Held: pleadings wholly deficient to constitute conupt practice, are insufficient to raise a triable issue and was liable to be struck out-Any evidence adduced later would be irrelevant and inadntissible. G Sections 99 and JOO (l)(b)-Election petition-Conupt practice-Appeal on ground of religion-Issuance of notice-Election meeting-Speeches by other persons-Retumed candidate's presence not provetf-Held : elemem of candidate's consent which is a constituent part of the conupt practice not proved and issuance of notice did not arise. H Sections 83, lOO(l)(b), 123(3) and 123(3-A)-Electioa petition-Cor492 • , ' • RAMAKANT MA YEKAR v. CELINE D' S!LV A 493 rupt practice-Pleadings-Vicarious liability of candidate for an act of other A persons-Must be pleaded and proved-Speeches made by other persons-Consent of the candidate-Cannot be assumed merely from the fact that he belonged to the same political pany--Roving inquiry into the affairs of a political party not permissible. Sections IOO(l)(b), 123(3) and (3-A)-<:orrupt practic~Appeal on ground of religion-Mention of "Hindutva" in election speeches, wall paintings and video cassettes-Did not amount to appeal for votes on the ground of Hindu Religioir-''Hindutva''-Use made of-Depended upon the context and the composition of the audience-Mere mention of religion in election campaign not a corrupt practice. General Clauses Act, 1897 : Section 1{}-Applicable to election petition under Representation of People Act, 1951. Words and Phrases : "Hindutva'LMeaning of The appellant's election to the State Legislative Assembly was declared void by the High Court under Section lOO(l)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for commission of corrupt practices under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of the R.P. Act. Simultaneously notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act. have been issued to five persons on the basis of speeches alleged to have been made by them on 29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990, wall paintings and video cassettes under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the R.P. Act. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the election petition was not filed within time and was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the R.P. Act; that issuance of notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act B c D E F on the basis of speeches made after deciding the election petition was illegal; and that the mention of "Hindutva" in speeches, wall paintings and G video cassettes did no~ amount to appeal for votes on the ground of Hindu Religion. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Acceptance of the nominations of the candidates was on H 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A 8.2.1990, the date of poll was 27.2.1990 and the result of election was declared on 13.1990 at which the appellant was declared elected. The election petition was filed on 16.4.1990. Admittedly the last date for filing the election petition according to the prescribed period of 45 days was 14.4.1990, but the High Court and its office were closed for holidays on 14th and 15th April, 1990 and reopened only on 16.4.1990. If Section 10 of the B General Clauses Act applies, then the election petition filed on 16.4.1990 was within time. This election petition was, therefore, filed within time. (503-D-E] Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 1993 decided on 11.12.95. C Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr., (1995] Suppl. SCR followed. 2. As for speeches alleged to have been made on 29.1.1990, it may be stated at the outset that they have to be excluded from consideration since D they cannot form the basis of any corrupt practice at the election, inasmuch as they relate to a period prior to the date on which the appellant became a candidate at the election as defined in Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This is the settled position in law. It follows necessarily that the High Court's Judgment as well as the subsequent notices issued under Section 99 of the R.P. Act, are unsustainable to the extent they E are based on the speeches alleged to have been made on 29.1.990. (504-B-D] F Subhash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao and Others, (1994] Supp. 2 SCC 446; Indira Nehnt Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975] Supp. SCC 1 and Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba, [1994] 2 SCC 392, referred to. 3. The High Court's judgment declaring the appellant's election to be void under Section 98 of the R.P. Act and the issuance of notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act are contrary to law and have to be set aside. (506-A] G Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 1993 decided 011 11.12.95 Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr., (1995] Suppl. SCR, followed. D.P. Mishra v. Kamal Narayan Shanna & Anr., [1971] 1 SCR 8, held H inapplicable. • RAMAKANT MA )'.EKAR v. CEL!N:Z D' SJLV A 495 4.1. The relevancy of speeches made by some persons can arise only A if the element of appellant's consent is also pleaded and proved. The appellant's consent was attempted to be JT.ade out by implication only from the fact of his personal presence when those speeches were made. However, B the above conclusion reached by the High Court shows that the appellant's presence at the meeting was not found to be proved. This being so, the element of candidate's consent which is a constituent part of the corrupt practice alleged on the basis of ';ieeches made on 24.2.1990 by some other persons has not been found ;:roved. That finding alone is sufficient to reject the allegation of corrupt practice on the basis of speeches made by others on 24.2.1990, as not proved. When this is the conclusion reached in respect of the appellant himself with regard to the allegation of corrupt C practice based on speeches made by others on 24.2.1990, then the question of recording a findin~ that the corrupt practice has been proved, does not arise and, thereforr, the further question of naming any other person who could have been proved at the trial to be guilty of tlte corrupt practice under Section 9> of the R.P. Act does not arise. [506-H, 507-A-C] D 4.2. No fact other than the averment of personal presence of the appellant was pleaded to make out the consent of the appellant required for corstituting the corrupt practice. The High Court has held that the presence of the appellant at that meeting has not been proved. There is thus no foundation even for a tentative finding of any corrupt practice on E the basis of speeches alleged to have been made by some persons in this case against the present appellant insasmuch as a necessary ingredient of the corrupt practice, i.e. consent of the appellant has been found to be not "roved. There being not even a tentative basis to hold the charge of this corrupt practice proved against the appellant, the further question of F invoking section 99 to name any other person for the commission of that corrupt ractice along with the returned candidate does not arise. [507-F-H] 4.3. The finding of corrupt practice against the appellant on the basis G of speeches alleged to have been made by some leaders in the meeting of 24.2.1990 being unsustainable, this charge has to fail and no occasion arises in the present case for taking any action under Section. 99 of the R.P. Act. This part of the High Court's judgment as well as the remaining part of the notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act also have to be set aside. [508-B] H 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A 5.1. Except for repeating the words of the statute prescribing the corrupt practice, there is no pleading of the material facts or any particulars necessary to constitute the corrupt practice as required by Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act. Reference made to certain photographs of the alleged wall painting and it has been said that the photographs would be relied on as and when produced. The contents or form of the wall painting or B their photographs has not been pleaded and the photographs were neither annexed to the election petition nor copy thereof furnished to the returned candidate along with a copy of the petition. Thus, there is no pleading in the election petition of the language or contents of the wall paintings which were alleged to constitute the corrupt practice of canvassing for votes in C the name of Hindu religion. [508-H, 509-A-B] 5.2. If the mere mention of photographs without indicating its contents in the election petition is to be construed as incorporation of the contents by reference in the election petition, then non-supply of the copy D of the photographs with the copy of the election petition would result in non-compliance of Section 81(3). However, since the photographs were not annexed to the election petition, it is a case not of non-compliance of section 81(3) but a case of total absence of any pleading in the election petition of the corrupt practice on the basis of wall paintings. Therefore, the pleading being wholly deficient in material facts necessary to constitute the cause of E action, it was insufficient to raise a triable issue on that basis. In fact, this part of the pleading was liable to be struck out since it was irrelevant at the trial for the reason stated. Any evidence adduced later, in the absence of the requisite pleading of this corrupt practice was irrelevant and inadmissible and should not have been recorded and having been recorded most be F excluded from consideration. The finding of the High Court of any corrupt practice being proved on this basis is contrary to law, and has to be set · aside for this reason alone. [509-C-E] 53. The state of pleading relating even to the video cassettes, when the video cassettes or its transcript were not produced along with the G election petition or its copy furnished with the copy of the election petition to the appellant is a serious defect in the pleading which once again has been totally overlooked at the trial of this election petition. This again has resulted in raising an issue for which the requisite pleadings were not there and when admitting considerable evidence which is irrelevant and inadH missible. [513-C-D] RAMAKANT MA YEKAR v. CELINE D' SILVA 497 Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 1993 decided on I 1.12.1995. Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr., [1995] Suppl. SCR, followed. A 6.1. The requisite consent of the candidate cannot be assnmed merely from the fact that the candidate belongs to the same political party which B the wrong doer was a leader since there can be no presumption in law that there is consent of every candidate of the political party for every act done by every acknowledged leader of that party. The corrupt practice for which a candidate can be held vicariously guilty for an act of any other person who is not his agent in whose favour general authority is presumed, must C be pleaded and proved to be with the consent of the candidate. It is so because the penal consequences resulting from the finding of a corrupt practice against the candidate are visited on the candidate h1cluding the setting aside of his election. The distinction between the grounds in Section lOO(l)(b) and Section lOO(l)(d)(ii) was completely missed. D [513-H, 514-A-D] 6.2. The trial of the election petition became a roving inquiry into the affairs of a political party when the only concern at the trial should have been the merit of the charge of corrupt practices attributed to the returned candidate at the election. Actions of the party were relevant only to the E extent relatable to the returned candidate, in the manner pleaded in the election petition. [511-E] 7. Any appeal for votes wherein mention was made of "Hindutva" is not by itself sufficient to amount to an appeal for votes for the Hindu candidates on the ground of their religion to constitute corrupt practice F under Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act. [510-H] Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 1991 decided on JJ.12.95. Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 1989 decided on 1 l.12.95. G Shri Suryakant Venkatrao Mahadik v. Smt. Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosale), [1995] Suppl. 6 SCR and Bal Thackeray v. Prabhakar K Kunte and Ors., [1995] Suppl. 6 SCR, followed. · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 1991 Etc. Etc. H 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 5/6.8.91 of the Bombay High Court in E.P. No. 21 of 1990. A.M. Khanwilkar, Ms. Bina Gupta, P.H. Parekh and M.N. Shroff for the appearing parties. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.S. VERMA, J. This is an appeal by the returned candidate under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short "the R.P. Act") against the Judgment dated 5th/6th August, 1991 in Election Petition No. 21 of 1990 by S.N. Variava, J. of the Bombay High Court C whereby the election of the appellant lo the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 49-Kurla Legislative Constituency held on 27.2.1990 has been declared to be void on the ground under Section 100( l)(b) for commission of corrupt practices under Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of the R.P. Act. By the said judgment, the learned Judge has decided the election D petition and made the order under Section 98 declaring the election of the appellant to be vmd but the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 5 have been reserved for being recorded after the inquiry under Section 99 of the R.P. Act is concluded against Chhagan Bhujbal, Pramod Mahajan, Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi and Pramod Navalkar to whom notices have been E issued nnder Section 99 of the R.P. Act by the order made therein. The ultimate conclusion in the final order made in the impugned judgment is quite involved because of the unusual mode adopted of deciding the election petition piecemeal. Instead of attempting to 'ummarise the conclusion, it is safer to quote certain portions of the concluding part of the judgment, as under : F G H "I have already held that the cassette was displayed in the constituency with the consent of the Respondent. T7iere is however llO proof that it was personally exhibited by the Respondent. Accordingly it will have to be held that, by mode of dfaplay of this video cassette, some other persons with the consent of the Respondent ha1·e committed Che com1pt practice of appealing for votes on the ground of the Respondent's religion i.e. Hindu religion and have attempted to create enmity and hatred between different communities and religions particularly Hindu and Muslims. On this count itself, the election of the Respondent must be set aside. Accordingly, Issues Nos. 3 and 6 have been answered in the Affirmative and Issue Nos. RAMAKANTMAYEKAR v. CELINED'SILVA[J.S.VERMA,J.] 499 1 and 4 have been answered in the Negatives. A However, before the final order is passed the last and the main mode of canvassing i.e. by means of the speeches made by Mr. Bal Thackeray and the other leaders of the Shiv Sena and BJ .P. alliance at the meetings held on 29th January, 1990 and 24th February, 1990, has to be considered. I have read the speeches of B Mr. Bal Thackeray, Mr. Pramod Mahajan, Mr. Chaggan Bhujbal, Mr. Manohar Joshi and Mr. Pramod Navalkar ...... On reading of these speeches, I am of the prima facie opinion that all the abovenamed persons have by their speeches committed the corrupt practice of having appealed for votes on the ground of the ResponC dents community and religion i.e. Hindu community and religion. They have also, prima-facie at least, committed the corrupt practice of attempting to create ~nmity and hatred between different classes of citizens on the basis of religion and community, particularly between Hindus and Muslims. I have already set out above that i11 D cases like the present the consent of Respondent can be and .is implied. As stated above the effect and import of the entire speech has to be considered. At this prima-facie stage it is therefore not possible to pin point any particular po1tion or portions. That can only be do11e after hearing the import and effect and interpretation of the speeches from the person who made the speeches. Thus before, I E express my final opinion I intend to issue notices under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to all the above named persons, thus the answer to Issues 2 and 5 has been reserved till after the final disposal of the Notices issued hereunder. Accordingly, I direct that separate notices under Section 99 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 be issued to Mr. Bal Thackeray, Mr. Manohar Joshi, Mr. Chaggan Bhujbal, Mr. Parmod Navalkar and Mr. Pramod Mahajan ............ To each Notice shall F also be annexed a copy of this Judgment. In each Notice it will be . pointed that in the Judgment it is already held that the conceme.d G speech/speeches were with the implied consent of the Respondent." xxx xxx xxx ''As it has been held that corrnpt practice has bee11 committed by mode of wall paintings and display of video cassettes, the petition is H 500 A B c SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1995]SUPP.6S.C.R. made absolute in temis of prayers (a) and (b) i.e. the Election of the Respondent to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election held on 27th February, 1990 from Constituency No. 49 i.e. Kurla Constituency is declared as null and void. This is on the ground that corrupt practice set out above under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 have been· proved to have been committed with the consent of the respondent i.e. that there has been an appeal to vote for the Respondent in the name of his religion i.e. Hindu religion and an attempt has been made to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between the different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community 11 • (emphasis supplied) After the impugned judgment was rendered, notices under Section D 99 of the R.P. Act were issued to the aforesaid five persons who then raised certain preliminary objections to the validity of the notices. Variava, J. by his order dated 6.1.1992 rejected those objections. The notices given to these persons related to certain speeches alleged to have been made by them on 29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990 which, it was alleged, constituted corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the R.P. Act. In the said E order dated 6.1.1992, Variava, J. has mentioned certain facts in the background of which the objections to the notices under Section 99 were considered in that order. Those facts mentioned at the outset in the said order are as under : F G H "Petition No. 21of1990 is not an individual Election Petition before this court. In respect of the same elections i.e. the elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held in February 1990, ten such petitions have been filed before this Court. All of these are agaimt various successful candidates of Shiv Sena and Bharatiya Janata Party. All these petitions are based on a blank of Hindutva/Hinduism alleged to have been adopted by these parties and allegedly declared by there leaders at the joint Public meetings held by these two parties on 29th January 1990 and 24th February 1990. In all these petitions the charges are that the respective respondents, their election agents and/or some other persons have with the consent of the respective Respondents, committed corrupt practices of appearing I • RAMAKANT MA YEKAR v. CELINE D' SILVA [J.S. VERMA, J.L 501 for votes on the grounds of the candidates religion community and A caste viz. Hindu religion, community and caste and the corrupt practice of creating enmity and hatred between various classes of citizens on the ground of religion, community and caste particularly between Hindus and Muslims. Thus the charges are under sec. 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. B The mode of resorting to these corrupt practices have been by way of speeches made by the leaders of the two parties at the joint meetings held on 29th January, 1990 and 24th February, 1990, by use of offending poster, banners, wall writings and a video cassette "Awahan and Avhan". This is the same material in all these petitions. Then in individual Petitions, there are allegations of speeches made C in the individual constituencies, either by the respective Respondent or somebody else with his consent. In this Petition also, the charges against the Respondent and the alleged mode of canvassing are the same. Thus the charge is that the Respondent, his election agents and/or some other persons D have with his consent, committed the corrupt practices of appealing for votes on the grounds of the Respondents religion, community and caste viz., Hindu religion, community and caste and the corrupt practice of creating enmity and hatred between various classes of citizens on the ground of religion, community and caste E particularly between Hindus and Muslims. Thus the charges are under Secs. 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. In this Petition also the alleged mode of resorting to these . corrnpt practices is by way of speeches made by the leaders of Shiv Sena and B.J.P. at the joint public meetings held on 29th January F 1990 (at Girgaon Chowpatty) and 24th February 1990 (at Shivaji Park) and by use of offending posters, banners, wall writings and the video cassette 'Awahan and Avhan'." (emphasis supplied) G At the beginning of the impugned judgment, the scope of the election petition and the true perspective in which it has to be decided has been stated by V ariava, J. as under : "It must also be noted that these group of petitions are to a large extent unlike other election petitions. This because these petitions are H A B c D E F 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. not based upon individual acts of individuals. They are mainly based upon the abovementioned plank and/or policy decision of these parties. This will have a bearing on the question of consent. It is therefore necessary to note the make up of the Shiv Sena party. This alr~ady fonns part of two Judgments of this Court." xxx xxx xxx " .......... U11like other Election Petitions the main charge is not of an individual comtpt practice committed by an individual candidate in his constituency. Really speaking, the charge against the candidate is the charge of implementing the pla11k as decided by the party . ......... . In my view, in cases like this, where the plank has been declared by the leader of the party and the leader of the party has com1ilete control of the affairs of the party, once it is proved and held, that the plank declared by the leader amounts to a conupt practice, every candidate of that party will be bound by that plank . ........... As is set out hereafter, prima facie it does appear that the plank of Hindutva!Hinduism, as declared by the leaders at these two meetings amounts to the corrupt practice of appealing for votes in the name of the Hindu candidates religion and also amounts to the corrupt practice of attempting to create enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens on the grounds of community and religion, particularly between Hindus and Muslims .......... " It is this perception of Variava, J. which has coloured his entire judgment and led to the decision of the election petition, not confined to the record of the case but extending to all the general impressions. An objection expressly taken to the validity of the notices that they could not be issued after the election petition had been decided by making an order under Section 98 of the R.P. Act was rejected by order dated 6.1. 1992. The connected Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1992 by Chhagan Bhujbal, Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1992 by Pramod Mahajan and Civil Appeal No. 2396 of G 1992 by Balasaheb Thackeray, are against the order dated 6.1.1992 passed by Variava, J. rejecting the objections of these noticees to the validity of notice issued under Section 99 of the R.P. Act. The inqniry required to be made under Section 99 of the R.P. Act has not yet been made in the High Court against any of the noticees in view of the pendency of these appeals. H It may be mentioned that two remaining noticees Pramod Navalkar and ,_ RAMAKANT MA YEKAR v. CELINE D' SILVA (J.S. VERMA, J.] 503 Manohar Joshi had filed Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1992 and Civil Appeal A No. 795 of 1992 against rejection of their objections to the notices but those appeals have been summarily dismissed on 19.8.1993 and 7.9.1993 apparently leaving open the question of validity of the notices to be decided . at a later stage. There is no dispute at the hearing of these appeals that the case of all the five noticees has to be dealt with in the same manner depending on the final outcome of these appeals. We would now consider the points which arise for decision. Dismissal of Election Petition under Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 The first submission in these appeals is that the election petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the R.P. Act for non-compliance of sub-section (1) of Section 81, inasmuch as the election petition was filed after expiry of the prescribed period of 45 days from the date of election. Acceptance of the nominations of the candidates was 011 8.2.1990, the date B c of poll was 27.2.1990 and the result of election was declared on 1.3.1990 at D which Ramakant Mayekar was declared elected. The election petition was filed on 16.4.1990. Admittedly the last date for filing the election petition according to the prescribed period of 45 days was 14.4.1990, but the High Court and its office were closed for holidays on 14th and 15th April, 1990 and reopened only on 16.4.1990. If Section 10 of the General Clauses Act E applies, then the election petition filed on 16.4.1990 was within time. We have already held in the connected Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 1993 Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr., decided today, that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to an election petition. It must therefore, be held that this election petition was filed within time. This argument on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, rejected. F Meaning and Effect of Sections 98 and 99 of the R.P. Act, 1951 The next question for consideration is the legality of deciding the election petition and declaring the election of the returned candidate to be G void by making an order under Section 98 of the R.P. Act, and then proceeding to issue notice under Section 99 to the aforesaid five persons on the basis of speeches alleged to have been made by them on 29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990 which form the basis of the ground under Section 100(1)(b) for declaring the election to be void. The question really is : Whether notice under Section 99 of the R.P. Act can be issued for commission of a corrupt H 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A practice, after making an order deciding the election petition and declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void? This specific objection taken by the noticees has been rejected by Variava, J. The legality of this view arises for consideration. As for the speeches alleged to have been made on 29.1.1990 it may B be stated at the outset that they have to be excluded from consideration since they cannot form the basis of any corrupt practice at the election, inasmuch as they relate to a period prior to the date on which Ramakant Mayekar became a candidate at the election as defined in Section 79(b) of the R.P. Act. This is the settled position in law. (See Subhash Desai v. C Sharad J. Rao and Others, [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 446; Indira Nehm Gandhi v. Raj Narain, [1975] Supp. SC 1 and Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba, [1994] 2 SCC 392. This was the undisputed position at the hearing of these appeals before us since the speeches made on 29 .1.1990 were prior to the date on which Ramakant Mayekar became a candidate at the election. It follows necessarily that the impugned judgment as well as the subsequent D notices issued under Section 99 of the R.P. Act, are unsustainable to the extent they are based on the speeches alleged to have been made on 29.1.1990. No further discussion is necessary for holding that part of the impugned judgment dated 5th/6th August, 1991, notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act and the subsequent order dated 6th January, 1992 as E contrary to law and, therefore, liable to be set aside for this reason alone. It is only the surviving part of the impugned judgment and the notices which require further consideration, for which purpose the question for decision at the threshold is the validity of the course adopted of deciding the election petition and declaring the election of the returned candidate F to be void and then proceedings to give notices for taking action under Section 99 of the R.P. Act. We have already indicated the combined effect of Sections 98 and 99 of the R.P. Act in the connected Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 1993 Manohar G Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr. - decided today. The correct legal position has been overlooked by the High Court. The High Court appears to have misread the decision of this Court in D.P. Mishra v. Kamal Narayan Shanna and Anr., [1971] 1 SCR 8, to form the opinion that the course adopted by it was permissible under H Section 99 of the R.P. Act. The question in that case was of the failure to RAMA.'