RAJESH KUMAR Vs. PREMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 18-9-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Susner in Election Petition No. 2/2010, whereby petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was allowed and the election of the petitioner for the post of Vice President was set aside, present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed an election petition on 15-2-2010 under Section 20 of the Act wherein it was alleged that election of Nagar Panchayat, Soyatkala for the post of Vice President took place on 16-1-2010 wherein 16 voters casted their votes. It was alleged that said election was contested by the petitioner and respondent No. 1. It was alleged that in the said election all the voters casted their votes out of which two ballots were rejected as invalid. After counting it was found that petitioner and respondent No. 1 both has got 7 votes. It was alleged that since both the candidates got equal number of votes, therefore, the Presiding Officer followed the procedure to decide the election by lot in which the petitioner was declared elected. It was alleged that the entire process which was followed was illegal. It was prayed that election of the petitioner for the post of Vice President be declared as invalid. The election petition was contested by the petitioner by filing reply wherein the allegations made in the petition were denied. It was prayed that petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence and also after examining the rejected ballot papers the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and election of the petitioner for the post of Vice President was declared illegal against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) MR. Vivek Sharan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the impugned order, which can be corrected by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It is submitted that the learned Court below has allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 1 and declared the election petition illegal on the ground that because of not following the Statutory Rules and also one vote was wrongly rejected by the Election Officer. It is submitted that since the meeting in which the election took place was not called in accordance with law, therefore, election petition was amended by moving an amendment application, which was duly allowed. It is submitted that otherwise also sufficient pleadings are in the election petition itself, which goes to show that the calling of the meeting was not in accordance with law, as seven days clear notice was not given. Learned Counsel further submits that since Section 56 (3) of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 was not followed for convening of meeting, therefore, the meeting itself was illegal, which is one of the ground for declaring the election invalid. It is submitted that so far as recounting of votes is concerned, interim order dated 7-4-10 and 29-4-10 were not challenged by the petitioner and also there is no findings of the learned Trial Court and the election was not declared illegal on the basis of recounting of votes, therefore, validity of that part of the order is not required to be seen. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is without any merits and the same be dismissed.