RAVINDRA KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No.2 participated in the election for the post of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat Sikri Jagir, Janpad Panchayat Lahar, Tehsil Mihona, District Bhind. In the said election, respondent No.2 obtained 407 votes whereas petitioner secured 425 votes, consequently petitioner was declared as the elected candidate on 14/7/2022. Being aggrieved by the said defeat, respondent No.2 filed an election petition under Sec. 122 of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1993'). Allegation raised in the said petition against the present petitioner (returned candidate) was that the counting process was conducted improperly. Consequently respondent No.2 as election petitioner, sought annulment of the election results along with a declaration for himself as the rightful candidate to be returned.

(3.) The present petitioner who is a returned candidate caused his appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of election petition as at the time of filing of election petition, Rs.500.00 was not deposited by respondent No.2 as security amount. Therefore, according to the present petitioner as per Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification of Membership) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred as 'Rules 1995') if at the time of presentation of election petition, deposit of Rs.500.00 as security amount is not made then as per Rule 8 of Rules 1995, election petition shall be dismissed by the Specified Officer. Since the election petition was preferred on 10/8/2022 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Lahar as Specified Officer but security deposit has not been made before him and the same has been deposited before Tehsildar, Lahar on 10/8/2022, therefore, according to the petitioner it was not a proper presentation of election petition. Said application was rejected by the Court below vide order dtd. 15/1/2024 (Annexure-P/1) on the ground that security deposit was made before the Tehsildar on the same day under the direction of Specified Officer, therefore, non-compliance of mandatory provision does not appear. Besides that, Court below rejected the application on the ground of res judicata also. Against that order petitioner is before this Court.