MANGESHRAO Vs. COLLECTOR GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are that Mangesh Rao, the applicant, Narainsingh and Niranjan Singh (the last two are non -applicants), filed their nomination papers for the election of Up -Sarpanch of Mandal Panchayat, Gwalior, before Shri V. M Khandekar the Nirwachan Adhikari. After the scrutiny of the nomination papers, the Nirwachan Adhikari, accepted the nomination paper of Mangesh Rao, the applicant, and rejected the nomination papers of the other two. In these circumstances, Mangesh R o, applicant, was declared elected (unopposed) and his name was put up on the Notice -Board of the Nirwachan Adhikari. On the very day the name of the applicant was put up on the Board as a successful candidate, one of the non -applicants Niranjan Singh filed an application before the Collector, Gwalior, protesting against the rejection of his nomination paper by the Nirwachan Adhikari, It is said that the Collector, without issuing any notice to the applicant (Mangesh Rao) not only allowed the application of the non -applicant but passed an omnibus order that all the nomination papers which have been rejected on the ground in the particular case should be accepted. As a result of this, the rejection of the nomination paper of non -applicant No. 2 before us (and who never filed any petition before the Collector against the rejection of his nomination paper) was also set aside. Against this order, the present petition is filed.

(2.) IT is contended by the applicant that the application which the Collector allowed was not in accordance with Section 41 of the Rules made under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act (Act No. 26 of 1951) and that in not giving notice to the applicants, before the decision of the applicants, the Collector acted not only against the principles of natural justice but he also acted in derogation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Rules referred to above, It is submitted that the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of Niranjan Singh in the manner in which he did, and that order passed by him is, therefore, invalid.

(3.) THIS remedy having provided it is obvious that no aggrieved person can have recourse to any procedure other than the one provided in Section 41. In the instant case, the aggrieved party without filing any election petition adopted a course which for want of a better word can be described as a short -cut. Where the law has clearly provided a remedy no person can resort to a method different from the one the law has laid down. In this view of the matter, the application filed by Niranjan Singh before the Collector was not in accordance with the law and as such was untenable and the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain it.