M.C. JAIN, J.—This writ petition is directed against the findings recorded by the District Judge, Balotra, on issues No. 10 and 11 framed in election petition submitted by the non - petitioner No. 2 Tej Singh.

2. The writ-petitioner Narpat Karan and the non - petitioner Tej Singh had contested the election of Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra and its result was declared on 30. 12. 1981, in which the writ - petitioner was declared elected. He secured 205 votes, whereas the non - petitioner No. 2 Tej Singh secured 203 votes. An election petition was filed by the non - petitioner No. 2 Tej Singh on 19.1.1982, in which he prayed that he be declared elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra. The writ - petitioner submitted reply to the election petition, in which he also pleaded recrimination alleging corrupt practices against the election-petitioner. Issues No. 10 and 11 were framed by the learned District Judge, which on translation in English, read as under:-

Issue No. 10:

Whether the plea relating to corrupt practices raised by the non-petitioner, cannot be considered in the election petition ?

Issue No. 11:

Whether the counter claim or plea relating to recrimination of the non -petitioner, is not in accordance with law and the same is not accompanied with challan showing the deposit of money, so the recrimination is liable to be dismissed?

The learned District, Judge after hearing the arguments on both issues, decided them in favour of the election petitioner Tej Singh and against the writ - petitioner Narpat Karan. It was found that the plea relating to corrupt practices raised in the form of recrimination, cannot be heard and the recrimination is not accompanied with a treasury receipt of 250/-, so the same is dismissed.

3. In this writ petition, the view taken by the learned District Judge has been challenged.

4. This writ petition, therefore, raises a question as to the interpretation of rule 6 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis Pradhans and Up-Prandhans, and Zila Parishads, Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs (Election Petition) Rules, 1959, (for short "the Rules"). Rule 6 reads as under:-

"6 Rights of candidates whose election is questioned .— Every respondent may defend his election on any ground on which it may be open to him legally to do so and give evidence to prove that any person in respect of whom a claim is made that such person be declared elected in his place or in priority to him, should not be declared so elected in the same manner as if he had presented a petition against the election of such person.

For appreciating the contention advanced on both the sides it is necessary to quote rule 5, as well, which reads as under :-

"5. Form and presentation of petitions.— (1) The petition shall be presented to the Judge within 30 days after the day on which the result of the election is announced and shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the respondent is questioned and shall briefly describe the circumstances which may justify the election being questioned on such grounds. Every petition shall be accompanied by a treasury challan of Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty.

(2) The petition may be presented to the Judge by any member of the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be.

(3) The person whose election is questioned and where the petition claims that any other candidate shall be declared in place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate who has polled more votes than such candidate, shall be made a respondent to the petition."

From the perusal of Rule 5 it would appear that an election petition under the rules, is required to be presented to the Judge within 30 days after the day on which the result of the election is announced and the ground or grounds on which the election is questioned, are required to be specified in the petition and along with the ground or grounds, the circumstances, which may justify the questioning of election on such grounds, are also required to be briefly des

Click Here to Read the rest of this document