BRAJESH SINGH Vs. RAM PRASAD DEHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dtd. 28/12/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.29557/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. By the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order dtd. 16/11/2023 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, acting as the Election Tribunal.

(2.) By order dtd. 16/11/2023, the Election Tribunal allowed the election petition filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the election of the appellant to the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, Seoni. The Tribunal held that Bagri/Bagdi caste falls under Rajput/Thakur caste in District Seoni and is not recognised as a Scheduled Caste as per various Government orders. On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category and, therefore, was not qualified to contest the election for a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste under Rule 31(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and Sec. 14(2) of the Panchayat and Gram Swaraj Act, 1993. Consequently, the election of the appellant was declared void under Rules 21(1)(a) and 23(1)(b) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995, with a direction to hold fresh election.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Election Tribunal, the appellant approached this Writ Court by filing W.P. No.29557/2023, contending that the election petition was decided without framing issues and without granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, despite specific request having been made. It was pleaded that the controversy relating to wrongful acceptance of the nomination form could not have been adjudicated without recording evidence, particularly when the appellant had filed a detailed reply supported by documents showing compliance with Rule 40A of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and the Circular dtd. 13/12/2021. It was further contended that the Election Tribunal erred in determining the caste status of the appellant solely on the basis of executive instructions, without any evidentiary foundation and in disregard of the Constitutional (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.