1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ELECTION PETITION NO. 6 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. Vikram S.Undre holding for Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar,Advocate for Petitioner. ........................... [ CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. ] DATE : 03/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Vikram S.Undre holding for Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Petitioner. . 2. I have considered the averments in the Election Petition. 3. The Election Petition is founded on transcription of various speeches of the Respondent no. 1, who is the elected candidate or those who had campaigned for him. The text of the speeches, even taken as they are, do not indicate any promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between 2 classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, caste, community or language by the respondent no. 1 or his agent as such. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the speech delivered by one of the members of the Legislative Assembly namely Shri. Ravi Gaikwad on 5/10/2009, which is quoted in the petition, does imply the attempt to spread the feelings of enmity between two ( 2 ) classes on ground of religion. What appears from the text of the speeches is that the words used by said M.L.A. Shri. Ravi Gaikwad pertained to colour of the flag. Allegedly, it was stated by the speaker, : “ It is also written here that the saffron colour is given to the soil of Omerga and Lohara Taluka. Should it be given blue colour ? ” 4. This and similar kind of speeches have absolutely no potential to spread out feelings of hatred between the two ( 2 ) classes. It appears that the colour is referred to by the speakers in relation to the ideology of the party or the flag of the party or the propaganda for the party of which the respondent no. 1 was the candidate. In any case, there is hardly any prima facie material to infer that the so called speeches 3 referred in the petition would even remotely come within the ambit of Section 123 (3­A) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. 5. In an appropriate case this Court may exercise powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Apex Court in “ Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal V/s Rajiv Gandhi ” ( AIR 1987 SC 1577 ) held that the Court is empowered to consider the material averments in the petition and if no cause of action is disclosed then to reject the plaint. Considering the gamut of pleadings of the petitioner, it must be said that no case is made out to take cognizance of the election petition and the same is bereft of cause of action. The petition is, therefore, rejected as provided under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petition is accordingly disposed of. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE knp/EP 6.2009