SMT. GUDDI W/O RAGHVENDRA YADAV Vs. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CUM SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NIWADI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election petitioner before the specified officer under the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, has approached this court taking exception to the order dated 6.8.2015 passed by the specified officer while dismissing the election petition under section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 for the reason of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Rule 3 (2) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short 'Rules, 1995') in the matter of submission of copy of the attested election petition under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that an election petition was filed on 2.2.2015 assailing election of the respondent no.2 returned candidate on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Taricharkhurd, Tahsil Niwadi, District Tikamgarh on several grounds. The election was held on 13.1.2015 and the result was declared on 17.1.2015.

(3.) On receipt of notice along with copy of the election petition, the respondent no. 2 had filed an objection on 17.6.2015 under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, 1995, inter-alia raising two fold submissions that the copy of the election petition submitted by the petitioner is not the certified copy and page 3 of the election petition does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The objection was rejected by the specified officer on 17.6.2015 primarily on the premises that the election petition was at advance stage of trial and fixed for arguments. Challenging the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 - returned candidate filed writ petition in this court. The same was registered as W.P.No.8986/2015. This court while disposing of the writ petition on 21.7.2015 had directed the specified officer to deal with the objection raised under Ruler 3 (2) of the Rules, 1995 on merits at the time of finally deciding the election petition. It appears the aforesaid objection was taken into consideration by the specified officer. On perusal of the record found that the petitioner's signatures are not found at page 3 of the copy of the election petition, therefore, the copies submitted by the petitioner's could not be said to be duly attested true copy of the election petition; mandatory requirement of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995, consequently, dismissed the election petition by the impugned order.