CHANDRAWATI Vs. VIJAY RAJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 18.6.2001 passed by the prescribed authority as contained in Annexure P -3, and further to issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same and further to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Collector -cum -prescribed authority, the respondent No. 12 herein to proceed in accordance with law.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded in the writ petition are that the election for various posts of Janpad Panchayat, Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi was held on 1.2.2000. The petitioner and the respondents No.1 to 9 filed their nomination papers for membership of Janpad Panchayat from Ward No. 1(2) Bharatpur. All the nomination. papers were found in order and symbols were allotted to the candidates and eventually the polling took place on 1.2.2000. The petitioner secured 983 votes whereas the respondent No. 1 obtained 980 votes. Having got more votes, the petitioner was declared elected is a member of Janpad Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the result of the election, the respondent No.1 filed election petition under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed her written statement in oppugnation of the election petition and specifically denied each and every ground urged in the election petition. A stand was also taken that the election petition was baseless and devoid of substance and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

(3.) BEFORE the Election Tribunal, the petitioner examined herself and she was cross -examined by the counsel for the election petitioner. Thereafter the case was fixed to 29.5.2001 for examination of remaining witnesses of the respondent No. 1. On 29.5.2001 the respondent No.1 was present with her counsel but the petitioner and her counsel were absent. The respondent No.1 thereafter closed her case without examining further witnesses. The election petition was adjourned to 12.6.2001 for arguments. The prescribed authority heard the arguments of the counsel for the respondent No.1. and closed the petition for the orders. Thereafter he passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure P -3 directing recount of votes polled in booth No. 11, Amilai on 28.6.2001. It was further directed that the recount would be done under the supervision of the Sub -divisional Officer, Churhat in accordance with the rule 80(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nrivachan Niyam, 1995. According to the petitioner, before the final order vide Annexure P -3 was passed, the petitioner had filed an application contained in Annexure P -4 for setting aside the order dated 25.5.2001 which was passed ex -parte against the petitioner. But when she came to learn that the final order had already been passed by the Collector, she submitted another application for suspension of execution or the impugned order but the same was not paid heed to.