BHERULAL Vs. BARDICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Bherulal was declared elected a Panch from Ward No. 4 to Gram Panchayat Bagh at an election held on 15-5-1970. The rival candidates were respondent No. 1 Bardichand and respondent No. 2 Danmal. At the election, the petitioner secured 39 votes, which were the highest, while respondent No. 1 secured 37 votes and respondent No. 2 secured 20 votes. An election petition challenging the petitioner's election was filed by respondent No. 1 Bardichand, which has been allowed by the prescribed authority so that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to have the order of the prescribed authority setting aside the petitioner's election quashed.

(2.) SECTION 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962 provides for an election petition presented to the prescribed authority for challenging such an election. The prescribed authority is admittedly the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 3. The Rules applicable for the purpose are the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Petition Rules ). Rule 22 of the Election Petition Rules lays down grounds for declaring an election to be void. The Petitioner's election in the present case has been set aside by the prescribed authority on the grounds contained in Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of C. (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Election Petition Rules. It has been held that there was non-compliance with Rule 52 of the M. P. Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules) so as to make out a ground under Sub-clause (iii) and that there was improper rejection of two votes so as to make out a ground under Sub-clause (ii ). In view of both the defects found, it has been held that the result of the election of the concerning returned candidate has been materially affected.

(3.) THE relevant allegations on the basis of which both the grounds have been found proved are that the votes of two voters, namely, Jhammobai and Sarswatibai were improperly rejected, who were both intending to vote for respondent No. 1 and that the Presiding Officer did not comply with Rule 52 of the Election Rules, inasmuch as he did not assist the voter Jhammobai to cast her vote as a result of which the election was materially affected in the manner already stated. The margin with which the petitioner was declared elected being only two votes, the result of the election has been held to be materially affected. As already stated, both these allegations made in the election petition have been found proved.