RAMESHKUMAR BHIMJIBHAI DHAMEL Vs. MADHUBHAI BECHAR PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the Order 24. 7. 2007 made by the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Muli, in Election Petition No. 2 of 2007 whereby the petitioner's Election Petition has been rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation.

(2.) THE petitioner, a resident of Shekhpur Village, Taluka Muli, District Surendranagar, participated in the election of Gram Panchayat held on 10. 12. 2006. It is the say of the petitioner that at the time of declaration of election result on 12. 12. 2006 the Election Officer declared the petitioner to be a successful candidate. However, on 28. 12. 2006 when the Collector, Surendranagar, the designated Election Commission Officer, declared the result whereunder respondent No. 1 herein was declared as elected to the post of Member, Ward No. 7, Shekhpur Village Panchayat, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner was declared to have lost the election. As according to the petitioner the counting of votes was not correct : though the petitioner had secured 101 votes, while the respondent No. 1 had secured 48 votes, 10 votes having been declared invalid, respondent No. 1 was wrongly declared as elected and, therefore, the petitioner challenged the validity of election by preferring Election Petition No. 2 of 2007. Vide impugned order dated 24. 7. 2007 under Application Ex. 16 it has been found that the petition is barred by limitation considering the fact that the Election Petition had been preferred by the petitioner on 5. 1. 2007.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. Majmudar, learned Advocate has submitted that in light of Section 31 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1973 ("the Act") read with Rule 63 of the Gujarat Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 ("the Rules") the declaration of the result cannot be said to be complete unless and until the requirement of latter part of sub-Rule (1) of Section 63 of the Rules is shown to have been complied with. In other words, the submission was that mere compliance with earlier part of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 63 of the Rules is not sufficient for declaration to be complete and therefore the period of 15 days stipulated by Section 31 of the Act for preferring Election Petition shall have to be considered from the date of affixing of the election result on the Notice Board of the Panchayat Office as required by Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 63 of the Rules. That was the date, namely, 28. 12. 2006 when the petitioner came to acquire the knowledge that it was respondent No. 1 who was declared elected and not the petitioner. In support of the submissions made, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court rendered on 18. 9. 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 13959 of 2007 in the case of VAJIR MENABEN SHANKARBHAI v/s. ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER and ORS. with special reference to Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of the said Judgment.