DWAS DAS MANIKPURI Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH BARGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an elected sarpanch of Village Panchayat - Akoli. The election of the petitioner was called in question by filing an election petition by respondent No. 1 under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993"). Amongst others, respondent No. 1 (election petitioner) look the ground that the petitioner, on the date of filing of the nomination, was in arrears of payment of certain amount to the government, therefore, he was a defaulter and his nomination ought to have been rejected on the said account, whereas, the petitioner contested the election by suppressing all theses materials. He pleaded various financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the election petition and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C., praying that the grounds taken by the election petitioner were incorrect therefore, the election petition was not required to be entertained and the same should be dismissed at the threshold. A reply to the said application was filed by the election petitioner, who further substantiated his plea taken in the election petition. The learned Election Tribunal heard the arguments on the said application filed by the petitioner and dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure P/3), holding that there was sufficient material on record to prosecute the election petition and the election petition was not liable to be dismissed at the threshold However, the Tribunal, referring to the provisions of Section 66 of the Act, 1993, directed that the financial powers of the petitioner be withdrawn in the above facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. H.B. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the rejection of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was not proper. He also argued that the Election tribunal was having no jurisdiction to pass the order relating to withdrawal of the financial powers of the petitioner at the instance of the election petitioner in an Election Petition filed under Section 122 of the Act, 1993.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Sahu, Mr. Bajpayee and Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondent, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Election Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition.