UDAY SINGH Vs. HIMMAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India shall also decide the connected petition being W.P. No. 5275 of 1996 Himmat Singh v. Uday Singh and others) against the same order dated 15.11.1996 of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal as Specified Officer in the election petition filed under Sec. 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

(2.) THE Specified Officer has passed a very peculiar order whereby both the contesting parties to the petition feel aggrieved. The Specified Officer had tried the election petition in such a slip -shod and illegal manner that the proceedings dragged on for number of days and earlier two writ petitions came to be filed in the course of election trial. The facts narrated hereunder would justify that it is high time that the legislature should seriously consider appointing any judicial officer or any officer of rank higher than Sub -Divisional Officer to be the Specified Officer for trying election petitions under the Act. A minimum knowledge of election law is necessary for trying an election petition. The impugned order by the Specified Officer in this case shows complete lack of the same.

(3.) THE present petitioner as contesting respondent and the successful candidate in the election, raised serious objections to the direction for calling the ballot papers for recount. The Counsel on his behalf has stated that the Specified Officer should first decide the question of maintainability of the election petition and dismiss the same on the ground of non -compliance of mandatory provisions such as non -deposit of security amount in time and not signing and properly verifying the election petition within prescribed time.