Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Gayad Ram - Petitioners
Versus
Pratap Singh Bhati and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10772 of 2018
Decided On : 23-04-2019
For the Petitioner: Arpit Bhoot.
For the Respondents:G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate assisted by D.S. Thind.
Headnote:
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Act, 1994 r/w Rule 80 and 82 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 – Section 43 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Petition against impugned order passed by election tribunal in Election Petition be quashed and set aside – Petitioner accordingly was elected as Sarpanch, respondent No. 1 also contested said election, but lost same – Thereafter respondent filed an election petition alleging use of corrupt practices by petitioner in election, coupled with creation of forged and fabricated documents, while filing nomination form for post of Sarpanch – Held, Permission to cure defect was given to respondent vide order which remained unchallenged, until impugned proceedings resulting into order were initiated – Court below observed that while such order permitting respondent to cure defect was passed on respondent has cured same – Court finds that the learned court below has recorded that for the slight delay in curing the defects, it has decided to impose a cost, as that was sufficient to give meaning to the earlier order dated 25.09.2017. It has been specifically held by the learned court below that the defects in question were curable as they were pertaining to material particulars, which could have been cured, and not the material facts, which could not have been cured – Petition dismissed – (Paras: 31 to 34)
Facts of the case:
Petition against impugned order passed by election tribunal in Election Petition be quashed and set aside – Petitioner accordingly was elected as Sarpanch, respondent No. 1 also contested said election, but lost same – Thereafter respondent filed an election petition alleging use of corrupt practices by petitioner in election, coupled with creation of forged and fabricated documents, while filing nomination form for post of Sarpanch.
Findings of the court:
Permission to cure defect was given to respondent vide order which remained unchallenged, until impugned proceedings resulting into order were initiated – Court below observed that while such order permitting respondent to cure defect was passed on respondent has cured same – Court finds that the learned court below has recorded that for the slight delay in curing the defects, it has decided to impose a cost, as that was sufficient to give meaning to the earlier order dated 25.09.2017. It has been specifically held by the learned court below that the defects in question were curable as they were pertaining to material particulars, which could have been cured, and not the material facts, which could not have been cured.
Result: Petition dismissed
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. This Hon'ble Court had passed the following order on 30.01.2019:
"Both the learned counsel submit that the Division Bench has already observed while deciding the appeal that the matter requires final adjudication at admission stage.
In view of the above, the miscellaneous application dated 23.01.2019 stands disposed of.
List this case for final disposal on 8th February, 2019."
2. In view of the afore-quoted order as well as upon insistence of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally.
3. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"(i) the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure-12) and the order dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned election tribunal in Election Petition No. 60/2015 (Pratap Singh Vs. Gay ad Ram) may kindly be quashed and set aside; and
(ii) the application (Annexure-4 & 8) filed by the humble petitioner may kindly be ordered to be allowed and the election petition may kindly be rejected; and
(iii) any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."
4. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the elections for the post of Sarpanch and other posts were conducted in the year 2015, and the present petitioner contested the said election and was declared as a winning candidate. The petitioner accordingly was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chandelao, Panchayat Samiti Bilara, District Jodhpur. The respondent No. 1 also contested the said election, but lost the same.
5. Thereafter, the respondent filed an election petition Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur District alleging use of corrupt practices by the petitioner in the election, coupled with creation of forged and fabricated documents, while filing nomination form for the post of Sarpanch. After issuance of notices in the election petition, the petitioner contested the same and a written statement to the said election petition was also filed by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner filed an application on 05.05.2017 under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Act, 1994 read with Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 along with Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the pleadings made in the writ petition, the petitioner in the said application has categorically pointed out that as per Rule 82 of the Rules of 1994, the Election Petition needs to be verified as per the provisions of the CPC, and the documents so filed by the election petitioner also needs to be verified.
7. Rule 82 of the Rules of 1994 reads as under:-
"Rule 82. Contents and verification of election petition.- (1) The petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petition relies and shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified by him in the same manner as the petition."
8. The respondent No. 1 filed a reply to the aforementioned application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2017 passed in the application preferred by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has held the election petition to be defective, but has granted one opportunity to the respondent to cure the defects in the election petition.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 151 CPC on 29.11.2017, alleging non-compliance of the aforementioned order dated 25.09.2017, whereby an opportunity was granted to the respondent to cure the defects in the electio
