SULEKHA KUSHRE Vs. URMILA VINOD SAIYYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the remaining respondents, even though served and represented. None had appeared on the last date of hearing also.

(2.) Petitioner was a returned candidate having been elected to the post of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat elections held in the year 2009-2010. She was elected to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nikkum under Block Birsa District Balaghat. Subsequently, on recounting the petitioner was declared to have lost the election and in her place respondent No.1 Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam was declared as elected. Assailing the aforesaid election of respondent No.1, petitioner presented an election petition before SDO, Baihar - the prescribed authority, and on notice being issued respondent No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interalia contending that the statutory requirement of Rule 3 sub-rule (1) and (2) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, has not been complied with and, therefore, the petition be dismissed. This application has been allowed by the impugned order-dated 19.7.2010 - Annexure P/1 and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Shri J.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that even though in the impugned order-dated 19.7.2010 no reason is given for rejecting the election petition, but in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an objection was raised to the effect that the election petition is not personally presented by the petitioner and, therefore, the same is unsustainable. It is stated by Shri J.N. Tripathi that the petitioner personally appeared before the SDO on 9.2.2010 and presented the petition and an endorsement in this regard is available in the election petition so also in the order-dated 10.2.2010. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petition is dismissed on improper considerations.