KALU RAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ appeal is heard finally. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 6/2/2012 passed by the Writ Court in WP 4946/2010.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 Bhavichand questioned the election of the appellant to the post of Sarpanch. For the aforesaid purpose, he filed an election petition in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, [Herein after referred to as "Rules of 1995"]. He filed the election petition before the Prescribed Authority under his signature, but copies of the election petition which were sent to the appellant and other respondents were photo copies of the original which was filed before the Authority. Present appellant in his reply had raised an objection that copy which was served upon him was not signed and certified by the election petitioners (respondent No. 4), hence, prima facie, the election petition is liable to be dismissed. The Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional Officer) had held that photo copy of the original election petition was served on the appellant which was not certified by the election petitioner (respondent No. 4), hence, there was violation of Rules of 1995 and dismissed the election petition.

(3.) The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that the appellant filed reply before the Tribunal and photo copy of the original petition was served on the appellant, hence, there was substantial compliance of the Rules. It is further observed by the Writ Court that the purpose of the rules is that true copy is served on the respondent so he could effectively make out a case in the written statement and prepare his defence. Because the written statement was filed and copy which was served on the appellant was the same which was filed before the Tribunal, hence, there was substantial compliance of the rules and, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the election petition.