HANUMANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 24.2.2012 (Anneuxre P-1) passed under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 ('Adhiniyam'). The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhadera. The election in question was held on 21.1.2010 and the counting took place on 30.01.2010. The petitioner was declared elected with the margin of 22 votes over respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam before the S.D.O. (Revenue) (Prescribed Authority) to try the election petitions as per the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership), Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as '1995 Rules'). The said authority is hereinafter called as 'Election Tribunal'. The Election Tribunal by its order dated 24.2.2012 annulled the election aforesaid and directed recounting of the votes and further directed to declare the result of election on the basis of the outcome of recounting. This order is under challenge in the present petition.

(2.) Shri S.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the said order and submits that as per Rule 3 of the said Rules, the security amount is required to be paid on the same date when election petition is filed. By drawing attention of this Court on the statement of the petitioner (Annexure P-10) at page 52, the reply filed by respondent No.3 before the Tribunal that the election petition is actually filed on 3.3.2010 by the election petitioner along with his Advocate. It is stated in the said reply Annexure P-10 that the date is erroneously mentioned as 4.3.2010 whereas the election petition is actually filed on 3.3.2010. Shri Raghuvanshi by drawing attention of this Court on Annexure P-12, again submits that the election petitioner has taken this stand on the document dated 25.1.2012 also that election petition is actually filed on 3.3.2010.

(3.) By placing reliance on the receipt Annexure P-11, Shri Raghuvanshai submits that the requisite amount/security amount is deposited on 4.3.2010. Thus, Shri Raghuvanshi submits that as per the own stand of respondent No.3, it is clear that the election petition was filed on 3.3.2010, whereas the requisite amount of security was deposited a day later on 4.3.2010 and, therefore, as per Rule 7 of the said rules, the election petition is liable to be dismissed and such a defect was not a curable defect.