RAJA BABU SONKAR Vs. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri V.P. Nema, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. They have fought long drawn battle in the corridors of the courts arising out of an election petition filed by the respondent no.2 before the respondent no.1.

(2.) At present, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.5.2018 whereby learned Commissioner has decided certain preliminary objections raised by the petitioner. The basic ground raised by Shri Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed written statement Annexure P-2 before the respondent no.1. The preliminary objection was specifically raised regarding non-availability of material facts and material particulars in the election petition which are essential as per Section 84-A (4) of the The Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Samiti Ka Nirvachan) Rules, 1997.

(3.) Indisputably, the present petitioner's application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure dated 23.07.2013 was rejected by the Commissioner on 03.09.2013 which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.21794/2013. This Court vide order dated 28.07.2016 permitted the petitioner to raise the objection in the written statement. In turn, the petitioner filed written submission dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure-P/11). Although certain other rounds of litigation had also taken place between the parties, at present, the relevant order is the recent order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6130/2018 decided on 02.04.2018. By taking this Court to this order, Shri Seth contended that this Court considered the written submissions and found that the impugned order therein dated 21.02.2018 is illegal because preliminary objections raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of election petition were not decided by a speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on Annexure-P/11 and contended that objection regarding lack of material facts and sufficient particulars was raised which is running in more than two pages supported by relevant judgments of Courts. There is no whisper, Shri Seth submits, in the impugned order regarding this objection, which goes to the root of the matter and is related with the maintainability of election petition itself.