BHANUKUMAR JAIN Vs. KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision filed under Section 441-F of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956'), is directed against the order dated 11-4-2002 passed by XII Additional District Judge, Indore in election petition No. 14/200, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the petition.

(2.) It is a case of direct election to the post of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Indore. Admittedly, the election to the office of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Indore was notified on 25-11-1999 and on 2-12-1999. The last date for filing the nomination was 3-12-1999. The date for scrutiny of nomination was 6-12-1999 and the last date for withdrawal of nomination paper was 22-12-1999. The election was held on 27-12-1999 and the result was declared on 3-1-2000. Respondent No.3, Kailash Vijayvargiya, amongst other non-applicants, contested the election and was declared elected as Mayor, Indore. Undisputedly, on the date of filing of the nomination paper i.e. on 3-12-1999 the respondent No.3 was sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly from Assembly Area No. 221 (Indore Assembly No.2) and was holding the office of Member of Legislative Assembly. After declaration of the result, the petitioner, a voter in the said election, filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No.3 as Mayor, Indore. In the petition it was contended that as per the provisions contained under Article 191 (l)(a) of the Constitution of India, the returned candidate was a disqualified person for filing the nomination as he was holding the office of Member of the Legislative Assembly at the time of filing the nomination which is an office of profit under Government.

(3.) It was further contended in the petition that the elections conducted on the basis of an electoral roll which was prepared in the year 1994 was null and void not only because the electoral roll was not notified in the gazette but it was not correct as most of the voters were either expired or were not available, moreso, the names were inserted in more than one ward. It was further contended that as the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1956 were not followed before holding the election, the division of wards was not in conformity with law. It was further contended that a person cannot hold two offices at a time and that since the office of Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) as also the office of Mayor are offices of profit, the election of respondent No.3 as Mayor is bad in law.