SAHODRA BAI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are arising out of two different orders but passed in one election petition by the Election Tribunal, constituted and presided over by II Additional District judge, Khurai, District Sagar, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. In this order first the matter relating to W. P. No. 10200/2010 would be dealt with and facts are taken from this petition only.

(2.) Brief facts are that the election of President of Municipal Council, Khurai, was held in the year 2009 in which the petitioner was elected as President of the aforesaid Municipal Council. Calling in question her election and specifically making a prayer for recounting of votes, the respondent No. 1 in this writ petition filed an election petition before the II Additional District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, constituting the Election Tribunal, as per the provisions of section 20 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It was contended by the election-petitioner that the counting of votes was not rightly done, as a result the petitioner herein was said to be declared elected by 24 votes. Incidentally the election-petitioner is said to be the husband of one of the candidates in the election namely Smt. Abha Ahirwar. According to him, he being an Elector, was competent to file the election petition for recounting of the votes as also declaring the result of the election in appropriate manner after recounting of the votes.

(3.) The election petition was entertained. Notices were issued and the petitioner herein, the returned candidate, filed the objection under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 24 of the Act. It was categorically contended that as per the provisions of section 22 of the Act, an election petition required to be filed under section 20 of the Act must contain the reliefs for declaring the result of the election as void but for the said purpose, material facts should be brought on record in the election petition. It was contended that the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, the election-petitioner, was not contending any such material facts and as such there was no question of entertaining any such election petition. It was very categorically contended in this application that since there is nothing pleaded in respect of irregularities committed in counting of the votes, there was no cause of action available to the election-petitioner to file an election petition.