MALKHAN SINGH Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by respondent No. 1 in Election Petition No. 16-A/89-A/16- 2014-15.

(2.) The petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 to 7 filed their nomination paper for election for the post of Sarpanch from Gram Panchayat Bhilon, Tehsil Khurai, District Sagar. The election was contested and respondent No. 7 was declared elected in the said election. Being aggrieved by that the petitioner has filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). In the said election petition, the petitioner has made an allegation that the election was not conducted in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that some persons who were not alive have casted their votes and have also taking various grounds. During the pendency of the said election petition, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. thereby explaining the allegations in the said election petition. After notice, respondent No. 7 had filed reply and denied the allegations made in the election petition. Thereafter, election tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence led by both the parties and respondent No. 1 vide order dated 15.03.2016 has dismissed the said election petition. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that respondent No. 1 has erred in dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that respondent No. 7 was the member of the society and he has not resigned from the said society and this fact was not disclosed by him in the nomination paper. The election tribunal has not decided the election petition on the basis of the available record. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has raised a specific plea in the election petition that number of persons who had died, have casted their votes, however, the tribunal has not framed any issue in that regard. It has further been submitted that the order passed by the respondent is a cryptic order and he has not given the finding on each of the issues. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the SDO for deciding the matter afresh.