THAKUR PRASAD Vs. V S MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has come up before me on a difference of opinion having arisen between Naik and Shiv Dayal JJ. , on points to be presently stated, in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Returning Officer appointed for the Gram Panchayat elections of Lanji Block rejecting a nomination paper of the applicant Thakur prasad for his election to the Gram Panchayat from Ward No. 5.

(2.) THE material facts are that for the election of only one person as a Panch from the aforesaid Ward, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. Kamta Prasad, filed their nomination papers. The applicant's nomination paper was filed before the returning Officer on a certain day at 12. 55 P. M. while the nomination paper of kamta Prasad was filed on the same day at 2. 11 P. M. The petitioner's name was proposed by one Kashinath. That same person also subscribed as proposer a nomination paper relating to Kamta Prasad. Another nomination paper of Kamta prasad was also filed by some other person subscribing as his proposer. The returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of Thakur Prasad as well as of kamta Prasad in which the proposer was Kashinath. He took the view that both these nomination papers were invalid inasmuch as kashinath had subscribed as proposer two nomination papers contrary to Rule 24 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). He, however, accepted as valid the other nomination paper of Kamta Prasad and declared him to be elected after rejecting the two nomination papers filed by Kashinath proposing the petitioner and Kamta prasad for the election. The petitioner then filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper contending that his nomination paper subscribed by kashinath as proposer being the earlier one was valid and the one subscribed by kashinath later in relation to Kamta Prasad was invalid.

(3.) NAIK J. , was inclined to accept the contention advanced on behalf of Thakur prasad. In regard to the contention urged before the Division Bench by the respondent Kamta Prasad that as [he petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an election petition no relief should be granted to him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Naik J. , expressed the opinion that the Rule that the High court docs not usually interfere when an alternative remedy, equally convenient, expedient and efficacious, exists was by no means an invariable one; and that in the present case the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1952, (hereinafter called the Act) and the rules made thereunder provided no remedy against the wrongful rejection of a nomination paper. He proceeded to say -" by the rejection of his nomination paper, the petitioner is denied his right to seek election not only to the Gram Panchayat but also to the tahsil and District Panchayats, as the election to these bodies are by an indirect process. The remedy by way of an election petition shall be available to the petitioner when all the elections are over. That remedy cannot, therefore, be said to be as expedient or efficacious. Besides, interference at this stage, when the elections are yet to be held, shall result in the saving of time and money to all concerned. "