RAJNI SAHU Vs. ASMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order disposes of Civil Revision No. 95/2010 and Civil Revision No. 96/2010 since they arise from the proceedings challenging common election wherein the revisionist was elected as a President of Nagar Panchayat, Karera, District Shivpuri.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts involved in both the civil revisions are that the election for the post of President of Nagar Panchayat, Karera, District Shivpuri was held in pursuance of the Notification dated 19-11-09. The said post was meant for and reserved for female candidate. Election was held on 14-12-09 and its result was notified vide M.P. Gazette dated 5-1-10. According to it, revisionist was declared as elected on the post of President of Nagar Panchayat, Karera. Smt.Asma (respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 95/ 10) as well as Smt.Chandra (respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 96/10) were also candidates in the said election, who were unsuccessful as per the result declared vide the aforesaid Notification. Both the aforesaid unsuccessful candidates presented separate election petitions under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act, 1961), to the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri which were numbered as E.P. No. 3/10 and E.P. No. 2/10, respectively. Written statements were submitted in both the election petitions. It was stated as a preliminary objection that there is a permanent seat of the Court of Additional District Judge at Karera and the election petitions ought to have been submitted before such Court. Jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri was thus disputed. A prayer was also made in the preliminary objection that the revisionist was having minor school going children and it would be highly inconvenient for her to attend the dates of hearing of the election petition at Shivpuri. Accordingly, a prayer was made for transferring the election petitions to the Court of Additional District Judge, Karera.

(3.) SHRI K.N. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate on behalf of the revisionist and SHRI M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 made their respective submissions, which have been duly considered in the succeeding paragraphs.