PUSHPARAJ SINGH Vs. AJAY SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 18.05.2010 by which the Presiding Officer of Election Tribunal, the Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol, has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with respect to the maintainability of the election petition. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the elections of the Member of Zila Panchayat, Members of Janpad Panchayat, Sarpanch and Ward Members of village Panchayats were notified. The petitioner and respondents No.1 to 8 were the contesting candidates for the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, Umariya from Ward No.6. The election was held on 18.01.2010. After the cast of votes, the petitioner was declared as elected Member from the said Ward by a margin of 258 votes. The respondent No.1 was, therefore, required to file an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). As per the provisions made for filing of such election petition under the Act, the same was presented before the Election Tribunal, presided by the Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol. The Commissioner entertained the election petition, issued the notices and upon service of the notices, the petitioner raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the election petition on the grounds that the election petition was not filed in accordance to the provisions of Rules, known as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'). It is contended by the petitioner that the election petition was not presented in the manner prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules as the same was filed by the Counsel of the election petitioner and not by the election petitioner himself. It is further contended that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules and as such the election petition was liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules where it is categorically provided that in case of non-compliance of Rules 3, Rule 4 or Rule 7 of the Rules, the election petition shall be dismissed by the specified officer. Since such an objection has been rejected by the Election Tribunal and immediately the date is fixed for recording of the evidence of the parties, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the election petition itself is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has filed a detailed return and it has been specifically contended that the election petition was not suffering from any non-compliance of Rule 3, 4 or 7 of the Rules and as such it was not to be dismissed at the threshold. From the order-sheet dated 04.03.2010 recorded by the Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol, it is contended that it is clear that the mandatory compliance of Rule 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules was done by the election petitioner and that is why the election petition was entertained. It is contended that there was no prejudice, nothing in the mind of the Election Tribunal as after receipt of the reply if the election petitions are not expeditiously decided, the very purpose of prescribing such a procedure of filing of election petition would be frustrated and in that event, the filing of election petition would itself render meaningless. Thus, it is contended that the submissions made by the petitioner in this petition are misconceived and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the records.