IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Gayatri Devi, Wife Of Surendra - Petitioner
Versus
Suman Devi, Wife Of Shiv Pratap Harshana - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6466 Of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Election Petition - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 43 - Rule 80 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 43 of the Act of 1994, Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. The court analyzed the concept of territorial constituency, preparation of electoral rolls, and the entitlement of voters to cast their votes in a specific Ward or Constituency. The court highlighted the finality of the electoral roll and the inability to challenge its validity in an election petition.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner as Zila Parishad Member from Ward No.22, Jaipur, alleging improper reception of votes from electors of certain villages. The petitioner contended that the election was held as per the final electoral roll of 2021 and none of the voters outside the electoral roll for Ward No.22 were permitted to cast votes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the casting of votes by electors included in the electoral roll for a specific Ward or Constituency cannot be considered as improper reception of votes under Rule 80. The court emphasized the finality of the electoral roll and the inability to challenge its validity in an election petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of voters to cast their votes in a specific Ward or Constituency, the finality of the electoral roll, and the grounds for challenging an election under Rule 80.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that voting in accordance with the electoral roll for a Constituency cannot be considered as improper reception of votes under Rule 80. The court emphasized that the legality and validity of an electoral roll cannot be examined in an election petition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Election Tribunal, and dismissed the election petition filed by the respondent.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.4.2022 passed by learned Election Tribunal (learned Additional Civil Judge No.15), Chaksu, Headquarters Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Election Petition No.4/2021 CIS No.4/2021 CNR No.RJJM270014562021 whereby, while allowing the election petition filed by the respondent no.1/election petitioner, election of the petitioner as Member, Zila Parishad, Ward No.22, District Jaipur, has been set aside, the election has been held to be void, she has been held to be disqualified and the respondent no.1, the election petitioner, has been declared to be the elected Member from the Ward No.22.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent no.1 filed an election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity-`the Act of 1994’) read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for brevity- `the Rules of 1994’) assailing the election of the petitioner as Zila Parishad Member from Ward No.22, Jaipur on the premise that electoral roll of the Ward No.22 contained electors from certain villages of Ward No.23 and 24 as per the delimitation carried out prior to election. It was contended that had the electors from Ward No. 23 and 24 not been permitted to cast their vote in the Ward No.22 and their votes are excluded, the election petitioner would have won the election by 570 votes. It was, therefore, prayed that election of the petitioner as Ward Member be declared void, result of the election be cancelled and the election petitioner be declared as the elected candidate.
3. The petitioner in her reply to the election petition submitted that the election was held as per the final electoral roll of the year 2021 published on 19.4.2021 and none of the voters outside the electoral roll prepared for the Ward No.22 was permitted to cast vote in the election.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Election Tribunal framed four issues including relief. The parties led their respective evidence.
5. The election petition has been allowed by the learned Election Tribunal vide its order dated 20.4.2022 in terms as stated hereinabove.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajendra Prasad submitted that Section 18 of the Act of 1994 provides that for each Ward or Constituency so divided under this Act, there shall be prepared and maintained by or under the supervision of the State Election Commission, an electoral roll and as per Section 18C, every person, who is registered in the electoral roll of any Ward or Constituency, shall be entitled to vote in that Ward or Constituency and it shall not be permissible for such voter to cast vote in more than one Ward or Constituency or to cast vote more than once in the same Ward or Constituency. Inviting attention of the Court towards the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, learned Senior Counsel contended that no election to any Panchayat can be called in question except by way of an election petition presented to such authority and in such a manner as is provided by or under any law made by the legislature of a State. He submitted that as per Section 43 of the Act of 1994, an election can be called in question by way of a petition presented on the prescribed grounds. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 lays down the manner of challenging an election under the Act. He submits that under clause (d)(iii) of Rule 80, an election under the Act or under the Rules may be called in question on account of improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void. Shri Rajendra Prasad submitted that if the provisions of Rule 80 are read in harmony with other provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is apparent that casting of a vote by an elector registered in the electoral roll of a particular Ward or Constituency, does not fall within the mischief of Rule 80 (d) (iii).
7. Referrin
The finality of the electoral roll and the inability to challenge its validity in an election petition.
The Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an Election O.P. filed under Sec. 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to disprove ....
Interference in electoral matters after results are declared is barred by Articles 243-O and 243-ZG; the appropriate recourse is through an election petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.