PREMSHANKAR CHANDULAL RAVAL Vs. RUKHIBEN MEGHRAJBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts in the present petition appears to be that the petitioner was the Election Officer at the relevant point of time. The election petition was filed by respondent No. 1 for challenging the election and declaration of the result of Bharod Gram Panchayat, whereby Lilaben Parmar, respondent No. 2 herein was declared as elected. The Election Tribunal of the Court of Principal Sr. Civil Judge at Palanpur tried the Election Petition No. 1 of 2007 under Sec. 31 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The pertinent aspect is that, there was no oral evidence led by any parties to the proceedings and based on the documentary evidence Election Tribunal found that, in fact the respondent No. 1 herein had received 62 votes whereas respondent No. 2 herein had received 42 votes, but because of negligence and mischief of Election Officer/the petitioner herein, number of votes secured was reversed and it was shown that respondent No. 2 had received 62 votes and respondent No. 1 had received 42 votes. Therefore, respondent No. 2 was declared as elected candidate as against respondent No. 1. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the election and declared respondent No. 1 as elected candidate. However, the Tribunal further directed that as the Election Officer was found guilty; Collector, Palanpur was directed to lodge complaint against the Election Officer and submit his report to the Court with the complaint number within period of 15 clays. It is the second direction so far as filing of the complaint is concerned, the petitioner has approached to this Court by present petition. We may record that the petitioner herein is in capacity as the then Election Officer and he is not concerned with the setting aside of the election order declaring original applicant/respondent No. 1 as elected candidate, but as the direction No. 2 is affecting him, the order of the Tribunal is challenged to that extent in the present proceedings.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are elected candidate as well as defeated candidate, who were also party to the proceedings in the Election Tribunal, but have chosen not to appear. We have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 3.

(3.) The only aspect which may be required to be considered is, whether the Election Tribunal while trying the election petition could straightaway give direction to the Collector to file criminal complaint or not? The incidental aspect which may be required to be considered is, whether it was required for the Election Tribunal to give opportunity to the officer concerned before issuance of the direction to file criminal complaint against him.