MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders dated 26.07.2012, 13.08.2012 and 13.09.2012 passed in the election petition filed by respondent No.3 by the Specified Officer. The petitioner herein is the returned candidate against whom election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, has been filed by respondent No.3 before the Specified Officer, which is pending consideration.

(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there were allegations made with respect to not conducting the elections properly, in the election petition filed by respondent No.3, which were suitably replied by the petitioner. To prove the defence taken by the petitioner, some of the persons involved in the election proceedings were required to be examined as witnesses. The petitioner made an application in appropriate manner for calling those persons as witnesses, yet the said application was dismissed. The right to adduce evidence was closed by the Election Tribunal and, therefore, the petitioner is required to approach this Court. It is contended that by the impugned order dated 26.07.2012, ex parte proceedings were done against the petitioner while rejecting the application made by the petitioner for calling certain witnesses by the process of the Court. On 13.08.2012 the petitioner was not present in the Court but again the case was proceeded ex parte after closer of the right to adduce evidence of the petitioner. On 13.09.2012, the case was fixed for final arguments. On that day the petitioner moved an application under Order 8 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the said application was rejected saying that since the case is fixed for final arguments, no such application could be moved by the petitioner. This being the reason, since the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of defence in adequate manner, the proceedings of election petition were vitiated as the same were in violation of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'). It is, thus, contended that since injustice was caused to the petitioner and a returned candidate was not being offered opportunity of defence in the election petition in appropriate manner dehors the Rules, the writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.