MAKHANLAL SARIYA Vs. RIKHIRAM GAJESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12-1-2007 passed by respondent No. 2 in the Election Petition No. 5 (89)A-21 (2004-2005) filed by the respondent No. 1 against the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram panchayat, Chhanta, Janpad Panchayat Samnapur, District Dindori.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner along with other non-official respondents contested the election for the post of sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chhanta, Janpad Panchayat Samnapur, District Dindori. The election was held on 19-1-2005. On 28-1-2005 the petitioner was declared elected, being aggrieved by which respondent No. 1 filed an election petition before the S. D. O. , dindori on 9-2-2005. The S. D. O. on account of repeated a1382bsence of the petitioner proceeded ex parte against him and allowed the petition by order passed in Election case No. [89-A-21]04-05 on 24-6-2005. The petitioner being aggrieved filed W. P. No. 6038/2005 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent/election Tribunal on 5-10-2005 to proceed with the election petition in accordance with law from the stage on which the case was on 24-6-2005 and the order dated 24-6-2005 ordering recounting was quashed. Subsequently, the authority, after giving due opportunity for hearing to all the parties concerned, has passed the impugned order dated 12-1-2007 ordering recounting of Booth Nos. 74, 75 and 76.

(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed this petition contending that the impugned order passed by the S. D. O. deserves to be set aside as the s. D. O. has failed to take into consideration the contentions of the petitioner to the effect that the election petition itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that the respondent No. 1 has not filed an application for recount under Rule 80 of M. P. Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 at the time of counting and declaration of the result itself. It is further submitted that the authority did not permit the petitioner to cross examine the officials i. e. the returning officer and others who conducted the election and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.