GIRIJA BAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTIES were heard on the question of maintainability/availability of alternative remedy.

(2.) SHRI Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 10, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tilakala. It is contended that the stand of respondent is that she has been declared as Sarpanch by Annexure R -1 on 17.1.2015. The Returning Officer is not competent to declare her as elected. Hence, in the eyes of law there is no legal election/notification in favour of respondent No. 10. Thus, election petition under section 121 of Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on rule 90 of M.P Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (Niyam). By taking assistance from Form 26A, it is contended that the Returning Officer was not competent to issue the said notification, nor he was authorized by the Election Commission.

(3.) PER contra, Shri R.D. Jain, learned senior counsel relied on rule 81 of the said Niyam and supported the order.