BABULAL Vs. S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has presented this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order (Annexure 'D') dated 31-5-1983 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandsaur, the Authorised Officer, whereby the name of the petitioner at serial No. 114 of voters' list of Ward No. 9 of Gram Panchayat, Kachrod was ordered to be removed.

(2.) The petitioner, in his petition, contended that he is, a permanent indent of village Kuchrod, Tehsil and District Mandsur (M. P.). His name finds place in the voters' list for the Sitamau legislative constituency at serial No. 883, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure A. On 18-3-1980, the Authorised Officer passed an order that the petitioner resides in village Kuchrod in the legislative constituency of Sitamau and his name was included in the voters' list of Gram Panchayat, Kuchrod. One Rameshwar (respondent No. 2) raised an objection and submitted that the petitioner resides in Mandsaur. Hence his name be deleted. The Authorised Officer, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 26-4-1983, dismissed the objections under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called the Rules). Strangely, again the Authorised Officer served a notice to the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 31-5-1983.

(3.) To prove his contention that he is a permanent resident of village Kuchrod, the petitioner filed rent receipts and other documents with the petition. The main contention of the petitioner is that once under Rule 8 of the Rules, the Authorised Officer decides the claim or objections and gives his decision in writing ; that decision becomes final and cannot be recalled, reviewed, varied or reversed thereafter. Learned counsel, Shri C. R. Joshi, for tke petitioner, placed reliance on Rule 8 (3) of the Rules and a Division Beach decision of this Court in Balaram Hariram Kulambi v. Girdharilal Tulsiram and others [1965 MPLJ 727]. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that temporarily moving from one place to another has no relevance within the meaning of "permanent resident". He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Shanno Devi v. Mangal Sain [AIR 1961 SC 58]. He also relied on the case of Sarada Nair v. Vayankara Amma and others [AIR 1957 Kerala 158] decided by the Kerala High Court, to emphasize the meaning of the words "ordinarily resides".