AJAB RAO CHADOKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Similar questions of law being involved in these two writ petitions they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. The facts in each case shall be separately set out for the sake of clarity,

(2.) In W.P. No.183/2001 the facts as have been unfolded are that in the month of January, 2000 an election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gunkhed was to be held. The respondent No.2, Smt. Gangabai, submitted her nomination form to contest the election of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The said seat of the Sarpanch was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. The respondent No.2 belongs to other Backward Class and, therefore, objection was raised by the petitioners before the Returning Officer seeking rejection of her nomination papers. The respondent No.2 was given an opportunity of hearing by the Returning Officer. It has been putforth that the respondent No.2 submitted certain documents in support other submission that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. After due enquiry the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the respondent No.2. Peeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection of nomination form the respondent No, 2 preferred an election petition under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhaisdehi, district Betul, Specified Officer under the Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as '1995 Rules'). It was contended in the election petition that her husband was granted a lease of land in which it was shown that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. It was also stated by her she is a Gayaki which is covered under Scheduled Tribe category. It was pleaded no opportunity was afforded to her by the Returning Officer and, therefore, her nomination papers were erroneously rejected. The petitioners submitted a reply before the Specified Officer and also filed some documents in order to show that the respondent No.2 by caste is Ahir and, therefore, she could not have contested the election for the post of Sarpanch which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe community. Certain documents were brought before the Specified Officer, the Specified Officer on consideration of the material brought on record allowed the election petition and set aside the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent No.2. The said order has been criticised on number of grounds. It has been urged that the present petitioners though were objectors before the Returning Officer they were not made parties to the election petition. It is also urged that under Section 122 of the Act the election petition can be entertained by the Specified Officer if it is presented within thirty days from the date on which election in question is notified and hence, the respondent No.2 could not have filed the election petition as no election was notified and, therefore, the Specified Officer could not have entertained the election petition and declared the respondent No.2 as the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat

(3.) In W.P. No.184/2001 the respondent No.2 submitted his nomination papers to contest the election for the post of Panch from the Ward No.9 of Gunkhed Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid Ward was reserved for a scheduled Tribe candidate. As the respondent No.2 belongs to Other Backward Class the petitioners filed an objection before the Returning Officer challenging his nomination. The said authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.2 rejected his nomination papers. Feeling aggrieved the said respondent preferred an election petition under Section 122 of the Act and the Specified Officer. By the impugned order dated 15-12-2000 the Election Tribunal allowed the election petition and set aside the order passed by the Returning Officer and declared the respondent No.2 as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat. The main averment in the writ petition is that the proceeding before the Election Tribunal was not maintainable in law.