MULCHAND RAMAVTAR YADV Vs. JITENDRA PURUSHITTAM BHATELE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 441-F (2) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act ("act" hereafter) has been filed against the decision dated 11-1-2008 passed by learned XIIth Additional District Judge, Indore in election Petition No. 10/05. By the order impugned the learned Court below has under section 441-D (b) of the Act declared the election of the Revisionist as councilor, to be null and void.

(2.) THE Revisionist was a successful candidate from ward No. 18 in the last general election to the Municipal Corporation, Indore. He had defeated the respondent No. 7. In the said election the respondent No. 1 was Election agent of the respondent No. 7. The Election agent was also a voter of ward No. 18. He as a voter challenged the election on the ground that in the relevant affidavit the revisionist suppressed the fact of his externment which was ordered by additional District Magistrate, Indore, vide order dated 29-9-2004 under section 8 of the M. P. State Security Act. By the above order passed in case No. 158 of 2003, he was externed for one year. He also did not make full disclosure of other criminal cases. Accordingly the election of the Revisionist was sought to be declared null and void for violating the provisions of clause (i) of sub-rule (1) of rule 24-A of M. P. Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam. He in the election petition also sought declaration that respondent No. 7 be declared elected. The above petition was contested by the Revisionist. He denied the allegations made against him. The learned Court below framed issues, received evidence and after trial held that the Revisionist suppressed the above externment in his affidavit filed with the nomination form, therefore he was not qualified to contest the election and he adopted corrupt practice for getting him elected. He also held that it was not proved that the respondent No. 7 had polled second highest votes, thus declined to declare him elected and only ordered the unseating of the Revisionist declaring his election as null and void. Hence this Revision.

(3.) AT the motion hearing stage itself arguments for final disposal have been heard though respondent No. 1 only appeared after notices to all respondents. Having heard the arguments I have gone through the record and have reached the conclusion that the present Revision deserves to be allowed for the reasons as shown below.