LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-172

GULABKALI Vs. STATE OF M. P.

Decided On February 01, 2017
GULABKALI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 25-6-2015; whereby an election petition filed by the petitioner under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 against the election of respondent No. 4 as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gouri (35), Janpad Panchayat, Hanumana, District Rewa, has been dismissed on the preliminary issue as to non-compliance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she along with respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gouri. The polling was on 13-1-2015 and the results were declared on 17-1-2015. Petitioner lost to respondent No. 4 by five votes. Petitioner lodged complaint as to the corrupt practise adopted in winning the election. As no heed was paid on the complaint, petitioner filed an election petition under section 122 of Adhiniyam 1993 on 13-2-2015 by impleading necessary parties, along with 11 extra copies duly attested accompanied with the security amount of Rs. 1,000/-through challan. It is contended that as there was compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules, 1995 the specified officer, admitted the petition and issued notice on 13-2-2015 and the matter was posted on 27-2-2015. On 27-2-2015, respondent No. 3 appeared before the Tribunal; whereas respondent No. 4 appeared on 5-3-2015 whereon he took time to file reply. Preliminary objection as to non-compliance of the stipulation under Rule 3(2) of 1995 Rules were filed on 26-3-2015. The Specified Officer vide impugned order dismissed the election petition. It is contended that the Specified Officer glossed over the material documentary evidence on record which could establish that the petitioner complied with the stipulations contained in Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules, 1995.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 supports the order rejecting the election petition.