MAHAVEER SINGH Vs. RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above two writ petitions a common preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions has been raised, so I propose to dispose of that objection by this order.

(2.) BY these writ petitions, the elections of Pradhans of Panchayat Samitis have been challenged and it is prayed that the respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions namely; Narendrasingh in Civil Writ Petition No. 7 of 1982 and Tej Singh in (Civil Writ Petition No. 80 of 1982 may be declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Bali and Balotra respectively and the elections of respondent No. 1 namely; Raghunath Parihar in he first writ petition and Narpatkaran in the second writ petition may be declared invalid.

(3.) IN both the writ petitions, rejoinders to the replies of the first respondent have been filed. It was reiterated that the petitioner in his various capacities has a right to maintain the writ petition and as regards the disputed question of fact, it was alleged that no investigation is required to be made except to look into the documents and the ballot-papers and this Court may call for the record and make scrutiny thereof. It was alleged that the filling of the election petition by the defeated candidates would not came in the way of the petitioner in maintaining the writ petition. IN rejoinder, the allegation regarding filling of the writ petitions at the instance of the defeated candidates was not controverted. Even when, the writ petitions were heard, that allegation was not controverted. But, after the hearing was over, additional affidavits were filed by the petitioners controverting that allegation.