KAILASH SINGH Vs. NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-9-97 passed by the Additional Collector, Katni, in an Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 1, directing recount of the votes concerning election of the President of the Janpad Panchayat Katni, held on 30-5-94 in the Election Petition No. 52-B-121/96-97 and the Election Petition No. 163/B-121/93-94. It is not disputed that in the election to the office of the President of the Janpad Panchayat Katni, the petitioner as also the election petitioner Narayan Singh (respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 4599/97) and Praveen (respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 4600/97) were candidates and after the votes polled by each of them were counted on 21-5-94, the petitioner was declared elected. Against the election of the Returned Candidate, the petitioner herein, two election petitions were filed; one by Narayan Singh and the other by Praveen on the ground that there was improper acceptance and rejection of the votes and the votes had not been counted properly and although the election petitioners in each case had polled greater number of votes, the present petitioner had been declared as a returned candidate on the basis of the said illegal acceptance and rejection of the votes. Each of the petitioners before the Specified Officer, therefore, sought relief that election of the returned candidate namely the petitioner as President of the Janpad Panchayat, Katni, be set aside and instead, the election petitioner be declared as duly elected after recounting of the votes.

(2.) It is not disputed that on filing of the election petition, notice was issued to the returned candidate and the returned candidate had filed his written statement traversing and denying the allegations made in the election petition and it was specifically pleaded that the returned candidate had in fact polled the votes which were counted in his favour and there was no improper acceptance or rejection of votes as alleged. It appears that the election petition remained pending without making any appreciable progress and although issues had been framed, without the parties having led any evidence in the matter, the Specified Officer by his impugned order contained in the proceedings Annexure-R/1 to the Return of respondents 6 and 7 directed recount of the votes on the ground that the election petition had been filed about 3 years prior to the date of the said order and to avoid delay, in the interest of justice, the proposal of the election petitioner deserved to be accepted. The Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat, Katni, was directed to remain present with all documents and the ballot papers in the Court of the Specified Officer so that recounting could be done. It is against this order, common to both the election petitions, that the present two petitions have been filed. Since both the petitions assail the validity, propriety and legality of the very order directing recounting of the votes, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (1 of 1994) provides in Section 122 thereof that an election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner to the Sub-Divisional Officer in the case of Gram Panchayat, to the Collector in the case of Janpad Panchayat and to the Divisional Commissioner in the case of Zila Panchayat within thirty days from the date the election in question was notified. Sub-section (3) of Section 122 provides that such petition shall be enquired into and disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed. With a view to prescribe such procedure. Rules have been framed entitled