LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-105

NARAYAN CHOUKSEY Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

Decided On August 03, 2017
Narayan Chouksey Appellant
V/S
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of Commissioner, Jabalpur passed in Case No.70/B-121/2012-13 decided on 18.02.2014. By this order, the election petition of the petitioner filed under Section 66-A of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 was rejected by the learned Commissioner.

(2.) The petitioner and private respondents submitted their nomination for the post of 'vyapar pratinidhi'. As per the election result, petitioner secured 29 votes whereas respondent No.2 secured 31 votes and was declared as elected. The petitioner filed the election petition under Section 66-A of the Adhiniyam of 1972 before the learned Commissioner. After inviting response of the other side, recording the evidence, the learned Commissioner rejected the election petition.

(3.) Criticizing the said order, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the election the respondents published the voter list (Annexure-P/2). The voter list reflects that the names of Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Sushil Kumar were mentioned at two places. Alok Kumar, S/o Mahesh Kumar name is mentioned at serial Nos. 17 & 71, whereas name of Sushil Kumar, S/o Vitthaldas is repeated shown at serial Nos.34 & 35. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the findings given in para 22 of the impugned order dated 18.02.2014, it is clear that Alok Kumar had cast his vote twice. Accordingly, in view of this finding, it is clear that election was improperly conducted. Hence, learned Commissioner should have set aside the election. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 84-B of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan) Rules, 1997. He submits that Rule 84-B(2)(d)(iii) is attracted in the present case. In view of improper receipt of votes, the election must be declared as void. In support of findings at para 22 of the impugned order, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of Tehsildar/Assistant Returning Officer dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure-P/9).