TARABAI Vs. SHANTI BAI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second visit of petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 23-09-2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.10 whereby the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC has been rejected.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case for adjudication are that respondent No.1 -Smt. Shanti Bai filed an election petition under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 whereby election on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Lachayara, Block Kurwai District Vidisha was challenged. As per the submissions and pleadings contained in petition memo, election petition carried certain deficiencies as per M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995. It further appears that the Election Tribunal framed the issues and issue No.3 was framed about maintainability of election petition, therefore, petitioner filed an application under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC that issue No.3 which was framed regarding maintainability of election petition is a legal issue, hence, the same be heard and decided as preliminary issue. The said contention was duly replied by the election petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) admitting the fact that on the date of filing of election petition, security deposit was not made and security deposit was made to Tahsildar on 26-04-2015; after filing the election petition on 24-02-2015. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner; violation of rule 7 of Rules of 1995 was apparent and being a mandatory condition, the said question ought to have been considered by the authority as preliminary issue. In the case of election of Gram Panchayat specified authority is Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) and as respondent No.10 was holding the said post at the relevant point of time, therefore, arrayed as party respondent (later on; after filing of writ petition). The authority vide order dated 01-07-2015 dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC in a slipshod manner. Annexure P/6 reveals that no reason has been assigned for dismissal of the application nor any conclusion has been arrived at for such dismissal.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred writ petition bearing No.4567/2015 in which vide order dated 21-07-2015, this Court allowed the petition on the ground that the order passed by the SDO lacks any reason or finding whereas reasons are heartbeat of every judicial order. Matter was remanded back to the authority for fresh adjudication of the controversy wherein application under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC had to be decided afresh. Respondent No.10 again passed the same cryptic order dated 23-09-2015 vide Annexure P/1; which is under challenge in this writ petition.