AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6-8-96 passed in the case taken up by the Collector East Nimar (Khandwa), under suo motu revisional powers, has filed this petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assumption of the jurisdiction by the Collector for setting aside the election of the petitioner is patently illegal because an election held under the provisions of M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 can be set aside only on submission of a duly constituted election petition under Section 122(1) of the Adhiniyam and not otherwise. He submits that the manner in which the jurisdiction has been usurped would clearly show that that the learned Collector either did not try to read the provisions of the laws or did not understand the law in its true perspective.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that an illegality was brought to the notice of the Collector in accordance with Section 91 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of the Appeal and Revisions Rules 1995, the Collector was entitled to exercise the suo motu revisional powers and was absolutely justified in setting aside the election of the petitioner.