SUMERCHAND JAIN Vs. SHYAMLAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering urgency of this matter, as it appertains to election of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, we have heard this expeditiously.

(2.) Return has come but nothing turns on that. What we have to read is found in its entirety in the impugned order itself. Thus, valid complaint in this matter against the impugned order is that it had been passed on misconception of law and in that regard we have to say something. We do not have an iota of doubt even reading what we found in para 8 of the impugned order that the nomination paper of respondents 9 to 13 in the election petition had been rejected illegally. It is the finding of the Tribunal disposing the election petition, that we accept to reiterate and enforce. The Tribunal has held in categorical terms that those persons had produced receipts and on that basis thereof the allegation against them of being defaulters could not be sustained. However, unfortunately, the election petition was dismissed on a different ground to which we presently advert.

(3.) There are two sets of Rules to be read in the relevant M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Adhisuchana . Gathan) Niyam, 1974. Two different types of rights are envisaged under Rr. 17 and 43 respectively as indicated by the Chapter captions. Rule 17 is found in Chap, VIII which appertains to process of "nomination of candidates" while Chap. XI deals with the subject of "election petition". There is no doubt that during the course of election right to contest decision rendered on a nomination paper is made subject-matter of an appeal under R.17 and that right is reserved to the candidate or to his proposer. While, the right envisaged under R.43 is a wider right to be exercised by candidates as also by "any voter" of the constituency concerned. This appears clear from the provisions of sub-rule (5) of R.43.