Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C. K. PRASAD
RAVI THAKUR - Appellant
Versus
SHIVSHANKAR PATEL - Respondents
W. P. 3802 Of 1994
Decided On : 08/08/1996
ELECTION - Validity of Election of President of Janpad Panchayat - Deposit of Security Cost - Mandatory Requirement - Deposit within Limitation Period - Permissible - Rejection of Votes - Cross Mark Mandatory - Tick Mark Not Permitted - Ballot Paper Containing Cross and Tick Marks - Not Invalid.
Fact of the Case:
Election petition challenging the election of the President of Janpad Panchayat, Mandla, on grounds of invalid votes counted in favor of the returned candidate. The election petitioner deposited the security cost within the limitation period, but the returned candidate argued that the election petition was defective due to the initial non-deposit of the security cost. The Collector dismissed the returned candidate's prayer for dismissal of the election petition, holding that the security cost deposit within the limitation period rectified the defect. During the trial, two votes counted in favor of the returned candidate were declared invalid, resulting in a tie. The Collector directed a decision by lot, as per the rules. The election petitioner also challenged the counting of one vote with both cross and tick marks in favor of the returned candidate.
Finding of the Court:
1. The requirement of depositing security cost along with the election petition is mandatory, as per Rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991. 2. However, the deposit of security cost can be made within the limitation period for presenting the election petition, and the election petition is not rendered defective due to the initial non-deposit of the security cost. 3. The marking of a cross (X) on the ballot paper to indicate the vote for a particular candidate is mandatory, as per Rule 86 (12) of the Rules. 4. A ballot paper containing both cross and tick marks is not invalid if the tick mark is not a separate mark but is part of the cross mark, as it does not reveal the identity of the voter.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-deposit of security cost along with the election petition renders the election petition defective, even if the security cost is deposited within the limitation period? 2. Whether the rejection of two votes counted in favor of the returned candidate, due to the absence of a cross mark, was justified? 3. Whether the counting of one vote with both cross and tick marks in favor of the returned candidate was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of depositing security cost along with the election petition is mandatory, but the deposit can be made within the limitation period, and the election petition is not rendered defective due to the initial non-deposit of the security cost. 2. The marking of a cross (X) on the ballot paper to indicate the vote for a particular candidate is mandatory, and the rejection of two votes counted in favor of the returned candidate, due to the absence of a cross mark, was justified. 3. A ballot paper containing both cross and tick marks is not invalid if the tick mark is not a separate mark but is part of the cross mark, as it does not reveal the identity of the voter.
Final Decision: All writ petitions dismissed.
( 1 ) IN all these writ applications, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration and as such they are being disposed of by a common order.
( 2 ) THE writ application pertains to the validity of election of President of the Janpad Panchayat, Mandla. One Ravi Thakur (hereinafter referred to as the returned candidate) was declared elected as a president of Janpad Panchayat, Mandla and his election as such was challenged by one Shiv Shankar Patel (hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner) by filing an election petition under Section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 before the Collector. Writ Petition No. 3802/94: This writ application has been preferred by the returned candidate challenging the order dated 27-9-1994 passed by the Collector, whereby his prayer for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the election petitioner did not deposit the security cost at the time of presentation of the election petition, has been negatived and it has been held that as the security cost was deposited within the period of limitation, the election petition does not suffer from any legal defect and consequently the Collector directed for admission of the election petition. Writ Petition No. 9171/95 : This writ petition has been filed by the returned candidate for quashing the order dated 28-3-1995 whereby while disposing of the election petition by order dated 28-3-1995, two votes counted in his favour by the Returning Officer, have been declared to be illegal resulting into equality of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner. By the said order the Collector has directed the Returning Officer to proceed in the matter in accordance with Rule 86 (6) of the M. P. Panchayat Election Rules 1994, which inter alia provides that in case of equality of votes, the result shall be decided by lot, to be drawn by the presiding officer. Writ Petition No. 1100/95: By this writ application the election petitioner complains that one invalid vote has wrongly been directed to be counted by the Collector, by the aforesaid order dated 28-3-1995, in favour of the returned candidate. Prayer is to declare the said votes invalid and on such a declaration the election petitioner be declared elected as President of the Janpad Panchayat, as he has secured more votes. ( 3 ) FACTS, necessary for the decision of the aforesaid writ applications are that the returned candidate as also the election petitioner were elected as members of Janpad Panchayat, Mandla. They contested the election for the office of the President of Janpad Panchayat, held on 21-6-1994, in which the returned candidate Ravi Thakur was elected as President of the Janpad Panchayat and he defeated the election petitioner by a margin of two votes. It is relevant here to state that one Rajesh Pathak was also a candidate in the election and the returned candidate; election petitioner and the aforesaid Rajesh Pathak secured l0; 8 and 6 votes respectively. The election of the returned candidate as the President of the Janpad Panchayat was declared by notification dated 1-7-1994 and the election petitioner filed an election petition on 14-7-1994 challenging the election of the returned candidate as the President of the Panchayat and grievance was made in the election petition that the Presiding Officer did not comply with the statutory provision and invalid votes have been counted as valid in favour of the returned candidate.
( 4 ) IT is relevant here to state that election petition was presented without any depost of the security cost and the security cost of Rs. 250/- was deposited on 26-7-1994. The returned candidate raised objection and prayed for dismissal of the election petition but the prayer was declined and the Collector held that as the security cost was deposited within the period of limitation, the election petition did not suffer from any fatal defect, by order dated 27-9-1994. Returned candidate aggrieved by the a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
