PRADEEP RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. JIVAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is under section 26 of the M. P. Municipalities act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short ). By the impugned order dated 9-9-2005, learned First Additional District Judge, Jaora has dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure code for rejection of the election petition.

(2.) APPLICANT is duly elected councillor, from Ward No. 15 of Jaora municipal Council in the election held in November, 2004. The non-applicant no. 1 who was the rival and defeated candidate challenged the election of the applicant by filing an election petition on grounds stated therein and prayed that the election of the returned candidate be declared void with the further prayer that he himself be declared duly elected. Said election petition was directly presented in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Jaora. Applicant filed an application as stated above for rejection of the election petition because it was not presented in the Court of District Judge, Ratlam a judicial as well as revenue district headquarter of Jaora. Application was opposed by the non-applicant No. 1. In the reply it was stated that there was no defect in the presentation of the election petition in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Jaora. After hearing rival submissions, learned First Additional District Judge, Jaora rejected the application placing reliance on the Division Bench decision in the case of rajendra Prasad vs. Mahendra Singh Bargahi, reported in 2001 (2) MPLJ 82.

(3.) SHRI Champa Lal Yadav, learned senior counsel, frankly conceded that if the decision in Rajendra Prasad (supra) holds the field, then there is no merit in this revision. He, However placed reliance on another Division Bench decision in the case of Motilal vs. Narainprasad, reported in AIR 1967 M. P. 243 - 1967 mplj 134 and his only contention is that in view of the decision in Motilal (supra), an election petition could be presented only before the District Judge. Thus, the presentation of the election petition before the First Additional District judge, Jaora in the present case was illegal. According to him, judgment in motilal (supra) where it was held that a District Judge acts as persona designata was not considered by the subsequent Division Bench while deciding the controversy in Rajendra Prasad case, as a result matter requires to be placed before a larger bench to resolve the apparent conflict in Motilal and Rajendra prasad. On the first flush, argument seemed attractive, however, on a deeper probe this Court finds that submission is devoid of substance.