MANOJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the notice dated 3.10.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby the election for the post of Vice President is scheduled on 10.10.2012. Although prayer in para 7(ii) of the petition was also made, it was not pressed during the course of argument by learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) IN nutshell, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a "no- confidence motion" was issued against the erstwhile Vice President Smt. Sheela A.S.Kushwaha and, accordingly, on success of the said "no-confidence motion" the post became vacant. Thereafter, new elections were decided to be conducted, for which a meeting was convened on 1.10.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.10.2012 there was a quarrel in the meeting. The meeting was very tensed and certain persons threatened the petitioner. The petitioner intimated the same to the police and administrative authorities. The petitioner then preferred yet another representation to the authorities (Annexure P-11) on 6.10.2012 stating that one Shri Virendra Singh Harshana wrongfully detained District Panchayat members Smt. Sheela Jatav and Rajkumari. On the strength of that, it is stated that free and fair elections are not possible on 10.10.2012, the date for which it was adjourned after 1.10.2012. It is also requested to defer the date so that free and fair elections may be conducted.

(3.) THE next contention of Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi is based on sections 32, 35, 38 and 42-A of Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, the "Adhiniyam"). By placing reliance on these provisions, it is stated that it is the Election Commission, which is required to supervise the election and get the election conducted. He argued that the Collector has not been authorized by the Election Commission to conduct the election and he is not the District Election Officer. By placing reliance on Rules 6,7 and 21 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Up-Sarpanch, President and Vice President) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for brevity, the "1995 Nirvachan Niyam"), it is stated that the authorities are required to conduct election in the manner prescribed in 1995 Nirvachan Niyam. He heavily placed reliance on rule 21 of the 1995 Nirvachan Niyam. By placing reliance on (2006) 8 SCC 200 (Jairajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel and others), it is stated that this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court and, therefore, interference is warranted. He also relied on ILR (2010) 2 (MP) 1517 (Ghanshyam Tiwari vs. State of MP) and 2007 (3) JLJ 187 (Arvind Kumar Jain and others vs. State of MP and others) to submit that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, needs to exercise its power withstanding alternative remedy. When right to contest the election or a right of like nature is taken away, this Court is not precluded to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.