RAMLALLU BAIS Vs. VISHWAMITRA PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause x of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by Order dated 7-3-2001 passed in W.P. No. 7100/2000, whereby writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and it has been held that the Election Petition filed by him is within the period of limitation.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 Vishwamitra Pathak filed a Election Petition under Section 66-A of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa i.e. the Election Tribunal challenging the election of the appellant Ramlallu Bais as Chairman of Krishni Upaj Mandi, Singarouli. After service of notice, appellant herein, appeared and resisted the prayer of respondent No. 1 raising various pleas including the plea that the Election Petition is barred limitation as the same was not presented within 30 days from the date of publication of the result by the Collector. According to him the Collector declared the election on 28-2-2000 and respondent No. 1 having preferred the Election Petition on 6-4-2000, same is beyond the period of limitation. This contention of the appellant was upheld by the Election Tribunal by Order dated 28-11-2000. Respondent No. 1, aggrieved by the same preferred Writ Petition No. 7100/2000 before this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the said order. A learned Single Judge of this Court by Order dated 7-3-2001 allowed the writ petition held that on perusal of the provisions of Section 66-A of the Act, "it is luminously clear that the election petition is to be presented within 30 days from the date on which the election in question is notified." On fact, the learned Judge found that the result was notified on 8-3-2000 and hence the Election Petition filed by respondent No. 1 on 6-4-2000 was within 30 days i.e. the period of limitation prescribed under Section 66-A (2) of the Act. Accordingly it set aside the order of the Election Tribunal and remitted the matter back to it for decision on merits.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Chouhan appears on behalf of the appellant. He contends that the Collector having declared the result on 28-2-2000, Election Petition filed by respondent No. 1 on 6-4-2000 was beyond the period of limitation and as such the learned single Judge erred in law in holding the Election Petition to be within time and setting aside the Order of the Tribunal.