NARAYAN SINGH LODHI Vs. AMAR SINGH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called in question the order dated 16.7.2014, passed in Election Petition by the Sub Divisional Officer, prescribed authority under the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity), Banda, District Sagar, holding the election of the petitioner as null and void, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mainly, it is contended by the petitioner that in the Panchayat election held for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Hanouta, the petitioner was declared elected. There was sufficient margin of the votes. The defeated candidate, the respondent No.1, approached the Election Tribunal by filing an Election Petition, under the provisions of Section 122 of the Act, alleging that the petitioner was involved in the corrupt practices on account of which he has secured more votes than the election petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner has entered into an agreement between some of the candidates, who have supported him in securing the votes and thus, the election of the petitioner was liable to be set aside.

(2.) ON service of the Election Petition, the petitioner filed his reply categorically contending that he has not resorted to any corrupt practices and the agreement said to be executed by the petitioner with others was inadmissible in evidence as the original of the same was not produced. It was contended that since the petitioner has secured sufficient votes, frivolous allegations were made by the respondent No.1. It was thus contended that the Election Petition was liable to be dismissed. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not looked into properly, opportunity of defence was not properly provided to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the Presiding Officer of Election Tribunal has not considered the application made by the petitioner for restraining the respondent No.1 -Election Petitioner, to prove a document original of which was not produced and allowed the Election Petition by the impugned order, set aside the election of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) THIS Court deemed it proper to summon the record of the Election Tribunal, which has been produced in sealed cover by the Government Advocate. Even on the last date of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the other respondents. Since the contest was in between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 -Election Petitioner only, other respondents were not required to be heard. However, on the prayer of learned counsel for the respondent No.1, one more opportunity was granted and the case was directed to be listed on 6.1.2015 with a clear understanding that the same would be heard. On 6.1.2015, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 nor any arguments were made. The counsel for the petitioner was heard.