Back
2008(3) JLJ 293
R.S. Garg and R.K. Gupta, JJ.
Bhuvaneshwar Prasad @ Guddu Dixit v. State of M.P. and
others
Writ Appeal No.455 of 2008 (Jabalpur) : against the order of
Single Judge, passed in Writ Petition No.3140 of 2007, reported in
2008(3) JLJ 64;
Decided on 24.7.2008.
Shri Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that if an election petition had already been filed and the Sub-Divisional Officer assumed jurisdiction then for no good reason he could make a reference to the Collector for Collector‘s decision under section 36(3) of the Act. It is also submitted that the Collector, Katni could not assume jurisdiction under section 36(3) of the Act because the election petition was already filed and as the disqualification was already questioned in the election petition but not decided, therefore also the Collector could not assume jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the findings of the Collector though have been approved by the learned Single Judge but from the records it would appear that the said findings are absolutely perverse. It is also submitted that vide first order, the High Court did not condone the delay for filing the election petition but simply disposed of the Writ Petition No.947/2005 by its order dated 29.3.2005 permitting the petitioner to file an election petition. [Para 8
Held : Section 36 clearly provides that if any person having been elected as an officer bearer of Pane hay at -- (a) becomes office bearer concealing his disqualification for it which has not been questioned and decided by any election petition under section 122; he shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), cease to be such office bearer and his office shall become vacant. Sub-section (3), if is read in its true perspective and in accordance with legislature then would clearly show that legislature wanted the Collector to exercise the powers to see that no disqualified person contests the election after concealing the disqualification or no person who has become disqualified after the elections are over is continued as an office bearer in the Panchayat. Not only this, the Collector also has to see that whether the disqualification is removable and if yes, but not removed then in such a case the Collector may declare that the office has become vacant. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Para 19
(2) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss.36(2) and 36(3) -- election petition not entertainable if filed after 30 days -- such petition may be entertained as representation and may be sent to Collector for final disposal. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Para 16
(3) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss.36(2) and 36(3) -- election petition not entertainable being barred by time -- case may be referred to Collector by SDO for adjudication of disqualification of returned candidate. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Paras 27 & 28
(4) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S.122(2) -- election petition not entertainable being barred by time -- case may be referred to higher officer if on record an illegality is found. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Para 29
(5) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S.36(3) -- election petition dismissed as barred by limitation -- Collector can still investigate suppressed disqualification of returned candidate. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Para 31
(6) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S.122(2) -- election petition -- not filed within period of limitation -- delay cannot be condoned -- S.122(2) contains bar to entertain such petition. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Para 15
(7) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S.36(2)(a) -- words ‘questioned and decided‘ -- are to be read as one qualifying condition. [Para 21
(8) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226/227 -- M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 -- S.2(1) -- evidence recorded by Tribunal on basis of record and also on oral evidence given by witnesses -- cannot be challenged before writ Court or writ appeal Court. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Para 32
(9) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.3 -- principle of appreciation of evidence.
It is trite law that if the positive evidence led by a particular party is not rebutted by the other party by leading cogent and reliable evidence then the case of first party would be accepted. The principle for appreciation of the evidence is that if the positive evidence is led by a party then the Court would say that the fact is proved. In case the evidence is not reliable then the Court may say that such fact remains unproved but if the other side or contesting side leads further evidence and convinces the Court that the evidence led by the first party is not reliable or not accepted and the evidence of the contesting party is accepted by the Court then the Court would record a finding that the fact stands disproved. 2008(3) JLJ 64 affirmed. [Para 34
¼1½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 36¼2½¼d½] 36¼3½ rFkk 122 && iapk;r dk inkf/kdkjh viuh fujgZrk Nqik dj inkf/kdkjh cuk && /kkjk 122 ds v/khu fuokZpu vthZ esa ,slh fujgZrk iz‘uxr ugha dh xbZ vkSj mldk fofu‘p; ugha fd;k x;k && dyDVj }kjk /kkjk 36¼3½ ds v/khu fofuf‘pr dh tk ldrh gSA
vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku T;s"B dkmUlsy Jh jksfgr vk;Z us fuosnu fd;k fd ;fn fuokZpu vthZ igys&gh Qkby dj nh xbZ Fkh rFkk mi[kaM vf/kdkjh us vf/kdkfjrk /kkj.k dj yh Fkh rc fQj og vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36¼3½ ds v/khu dyDVj ds fofu‘p; ds fy, dyDVj dks funsZ‘k fcuk Bksl dkj.k ds dj ldrk FkkA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd dyDVj] dVuh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36¼3½ ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk /kkj.k ugha dj ldrk Fkk D;ksafd fuokZpu vthZ igys&gh Qkby dj nh xbZ Fkh vkSj D;ksafd fuokZpu vthZ esa fujgZrk igys&gh iz‘uxr dj nh xbZ Fkh ijarq fofuf‘pr ugha dh xbZ Fkh vr% blfy, Hkh dyDVj vf/kdkfjrk xzg.k ugha dj ldrk FkkA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd ;|fi dyDVj ds fu"d"kZ fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk vuqeksfnr fd, x, gS rFkkfi vfHkys[k ls izdV gksrk gS fd mDr fu"d"kZ iw.kZr% foi;ZLr gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd izFke vkns‘k }kjk mPp U;k;ky; us fuokZpu vthZ Qkby djus esa foyac ekQ ugha fd;k vfirq ;kph dks fuokZpu vthZ Qkby djus dh vuqKk nsrs gq, vius vkns‘k fnukad 29-3-2005 }kjk fjV ;kfpdk Ø-947@2005 dk fuiVkjk ek= fd;k gSA ¿ iSjk 8
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 36 esa Li"Vr% micaf/kr gS fd ;fn dksbZ O;fDr fdlh iapk;r ds in/kkjh ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd, tkus ij && ¼d½ mldh fujgZrk dks] tks /kkjk 122 ds v/khu fdlh pquko vthZ }kjk iz‘uxr vkSj fofuf‘pr u dh xbZ gks] Nqikrs gq, inkf/kdkjh gks tkrk gS( rks og mi/kkjk ¼3½ ds mica/kksa ds v/;/khu jgrs gq, ,slk in/kkjh ugha jg tk,xk vkSj mldk in fjDr gks tk,xkA mi/kkjk ¼3½ ls] ;fn mls lgh ifjizs{; esa vkSj fo/kku eaMy ds vuqlkj i<+k tk, rc] Li"Vr% nf‘kZr gksrk gS fd fo/kku eaMy pkgrk Fkk fd dyDVj viuh ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx ;g lqfuf‘pr djus ds fy, djs fd dksbZ Hkh fujgZ O;fDr fujgZrk Nqikus ds i‘pkr~ fuokZpu ugha yM+s vFkok dksbZ Hkh O;fDr tks fuokZpu iw.kZ gksus ds i‘pkr~ fujgZ gks x;k gS og iapk;r esa inkf/kdkjh ugha cuk jgsA ;gh ugha] dyDVj dks ;g Hkh ns[kuk gksrk gS fd D;k fujgZrk fujkdj.kh; gS vkSj ;fn gS] ij mldk fujkdj.k ugha fd;k tkrk rc ml n‘kk esa dyDVj ?kksf"kr dj ldrk gS fd in fjDr gks x;k gSA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 19
¼2½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 36¼2½ rFkk 36¼3½ && fuokZpu vthZ 30 fnu ds i‘pkr~ Qkby dh xbZ gks rc xzkg~; ugha && ,slh vthZ vH;kosnu ds :i esa xzg.k dh tk ldrh gS rFkk vafre fuiVkjs ds fy, dyDVj dks Hksth tk ldrh gSA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 16
¼3½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 36¼2½ rFkk 36¼3½ && fuokZpu vthZ le;oftZr gksus ds dkj.k xzkg~; ugha && fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ dh fujgZrk ds U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, ekeyk mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk dyDVj dks funsZf‘kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 27 ,oa 28
¼4½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 122¼2½ && fuokZpu vthZ le;oftZr gksus ds dkj.k xzkg~; ugha && vfHkys[k ij voS/krk ikbZ tk, rc ekeyk mPprj vf/kdkjh dks funsZf‘kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 29
¼5½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 36¼3½ && fuokZpu vthZ ifjlhek }kjk oftZr gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt && fQj Hkh dyDVj fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ dh fNikbZ xbZ fujgZrk dk vUos"k.k dj ldrk gSA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 31
¼6½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 122¼2½ && fuokZpu vthZ && ifjlhek vof/k ds Hkhrj Qkby ugha dh xbZ && foyac ekQ ugha fd;k tk ldrk && /kkjk 122¼2½ esa ,slh vthZ xzg.k djus dk otZu varfoZfu‘V gSA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 15
¼7½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 36¼2½¼d½ && ‘‘kCn ^iz‘uxr vkSj fofuf‘pr* && ,d gh fo‘ks"kd ‘krZ ds :i esa i<+s tkuk gksaxsA ¿ iSjk 21
¼8½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && vuq-226@227 && e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 && /kkjk 2¼1½ && vf/kdj.k }kjk vfHkys[k ds rFkk lkf{k;ksa }kjk fn, x, ekSf[kd lk{; ds Hkh vk/kkj ij lk{; vfHkfyf[kr && fjV U;k;ky; vFkok fjV vihy U;k;ky; ds le{k vk{ksfir ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 32
¼9½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 3 && lk{; ds ewY;kadu dk fl)karA
;g lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd fdlh fof‘k‘V i{k }kjk is‘k fd;k x;k fu‘p;kRed lk{; vU; i{k }kjk rdZiw.kZ vkSj fo‘oluh; lk{; is‘k dj [kafMr ugha fd;k tkrk rc izFke i{k dk i{kdFku Lohdkj fd;k tk,xkA lk{; ds ewY;kadu dk fl)kar ;g gS fd ;fn fdlh i{k }kjk fu‘p;kRed lk{; is‘k fd;k tkrk gS rc U;k;ky; dk dguk gksxk fd rF; lkfcr gks x;k gSA lk{; fo‘oluh; ugha gksus dh n‘kk esa U;k;ky; dg ldrk gS fd ;g rF; lkfcr ugha gqvk gSA ijarq ;fn vU; i{k ;k fojks/kh i{k vfrfjDr lk{; is‘k dj U;k;ky; dks vk‘oLr dj nsrk gS fd izFke i{k }kjk is‘k fd;k x;k lk{; fo‘oluh; ugha gS vFkok Lohdk;Z ugha gS rFkk fojks/kh i{k dk lk{; U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj dj fy;k tkrk gS rc U;k;ky; ;g fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djsxk fd rF; uklkfcr gks x;k gSA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 64 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 34
Garg, J. -- 1. The original petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by order dated 10.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.3140/2007 [2008(3) JLJ 64], by the learned Single Judge, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against the order dated 6.1.2007 passed by the Collector has been dismissed, his filed this appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
2. To put the records straight and crease out the wrinkles which are creating problems to all concerned, we are required to detail some facts.
3. The petitioner contested the election for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Badari. As the results were notified on 27.1.2005, any person aggrieved by the declaration of the result could certainly file an election petition within thirty days from the declaration of the results, i.e., on or before 26.1.2005.
4. One Vansh Gopal s/o Nand Gopal Dubey (respondent No.5) filed Writ Petition No.947 of 2005 submitting inter alia that the High Court should interfere in the matter but the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 29.3.2005 disposed of the petition observing that if petitioner files an election dispute before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider the same and dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order passed in the said writ petition. It appears that said Vansh Gopal Duhey filed an election petition on 5.5.2005. Notices were issued to the parties but before anything else could be done in the matter, the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 5.8.2005 referred the matter to the Collector with a submission that the question could be conveniently decided by the Collector under section 36(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Pane hay at Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 ("Act" for short). It appears that said Vansh Gopal Dubey again came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 13747/2006, which came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 4.10.2006. Copy of the said order has not been filed before this Court by either side but a reference to the said order is found in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The said order reads as under:
"Considering the short grievance of the petitioner, matter is pending before the Collector, Katni as referred by the SDO by the order Annexure P-5, dated 5.8.2005 which deserves to be heard and decided by the Collector, Katni expeditiously. This petition is finally disposed of with following directions:
(i) Petitioner may file an application for expeditious hearing of the matter to the Collector, Katni. Alongwith the application, petitioner shall enclose copy of this petition and order dated 5.8.2005 of the SDO Vijayraghavgarh for ready reference of the Collector, Katni.
(ii) On filing aforesaid application the Collector, Katni shall look into the matter and expedite the hearing of the case and shall make all endeavor to decide the matter expeditiously as far as possible within three months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid application."
5. Said Vansh Gopal Dubey filed an application for expeditious hearing of the matter to the Collector, Katni alongwith the copy of the said writ petition and the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vijayraghavgarh. The Collector on the said application directed issuance of notice to the present petitioner-appellant to show cause as to why an action be not taken against him and he be not disqualified to hold the office in view of the disqualification incurred by him under section 36(2) of the Act. The petitioner-appellant for the reasons best known to him did not file his written statement or reply but, however, took part in the enquiry and contended that the fourth child was born much before 26.1.2001 and not on 13.5.2003 as contended and alleged by Vansh Gopal Dubey. However, no evidence was led by him.
6. After hearing the parties, the Collector vide his order dated 16.
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
