MADANLAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICR REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.01.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed by the prescribed authority in the election petition filed by the respondent No.2. The said order was passed allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 preferred by the respondent No.2 to introduce the amendment in the election petition.

(2.) Facts in brief are as under. Petitioner and respondent No.2 along with other candidates contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dhardi, district Neemuch. The result of the election was declared on 27.01.2005 and the petitioner was declared elected to the office of Sarpanch. The election of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.2 alone basically on the ground that there was illegal rejection of valid votes or acceptance of invalid votes. After recording evidence, the Specified Officer passed an order for recounting of votes on 9.8.2005. After recounting, without setting aside the election of the petitioner, the specified officer declared respondent No.2 as the returned candidate to the office of Sarpanch. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 2282/05, which was allowed on 1.5.2007, and the order passed by the Specified Officer was set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, respondent No.2 preferred an appeal, which was registered as W.A. No. 353/07. The said writ appeal was dismissed on 29.8.2007 in view of the fact that matter has already been remanded, therefore, respondent No.2 who was the appellant would be free to raise all legal pleas before the Specified Officer and further with a direction that the authority will not be influenced by the order passed by this Court. Taking a cue from the order passed by this Court, respondent No.2 (election petitioner) moved an application for amendment in the pleadings. The application was opposed by the petitioner herein and after hearing rival submissions, the application was allowed by the order impugned, hence this petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri C.L.Yadav, learned senior counsel and Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 at length. Perused the material available on the record. Shri C.L.Yadav, learned senior counsel submitted that an election petition can be submitted under the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. He invited attention to Rule 5, which provides that an election petition shall contain concise statement of material facts with sufficient particulars, the grounds on which election is called in question. He also invited attention to Rule 21 (d) (iii) of the said rules, which reads as under: -