SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(MP) 903

C.K. Prasad
Sugnabai W/O Hariram
vs
Election Officer, Gram Panchayat ...
Decided on : 20 October, 1995

An election result can only be challenged through an election petition, and a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for challenging an election.

Headnote:

ELECTION - PANCHAYAT - ELECTION OF SARPANCH - NOTIFICATION - ELECTION RESULT - DECLARATION - ELECTION PETITION - REMEDY - M. P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHINIYAM, 1993, SECTION 122 - M. P. PANCHAYATS ELECTION RULES, 1994, RULES 77, 91.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 4 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bamni Bujurga, claiming that she was the duly elected Sarpanch. The petitioner alleged that she received the highest number of votes and was declared elected on 8-6-1994, but respondent No. 4 was subsequently notified as the elected Sarpanch due to a mistake in counting votes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's election was never notified as required under Rule 91 of the M. P. Panchayats Election Rules, 1994, while respondent No. 4 was duly notified as the elected Sarpanch. The court also noted that the petitioner did not file an election petition within 30 days from the date of notification of respondent No. 4's election, as required under Section 122(2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bamni Bujurga. 2. Whether the notification of respondent No. 4 as Sarpanch was valid. 3. Whether the petitioner could challenge the election result through a writ petition instead of an election petition.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's election was not valid as it was never notified in accordance with Rule 91 of the M. P. Panchayats Election Rules, 1994. 2. The court found that respondent No. 4 was duly notified as the elected Sarpanch and that the notification was valid. 3. The court held that the petitioner could not challenge the election result through a writ petition, as the remedy for challenging an election is an election petition under Section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that she was not entitled to any relief as her election was never notified and she failed to file an election petition within the prescribed time.

ORDER

C.K. Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner in the present Writ Application seeks a direction that she be declared as the duly elected 'Sarpanch' of Gram Panchayat Bamni Bujurga and she has the right to function as such.

2. According to the petitioner, election programme was declared by the Election Officer for election of 'Sarpanch' of Gram Panchayat Bamni Bujurga. According to the petitioner, she and respondent No. 4 Smt. Parshadi Bai, have filed nominations for election to the office of the 'Sarpanch'. According to her, she got the highest number of votes and consequently the Election Officer declared her as 'Sarpanch' on 8-6-1994 according to Rule 77 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Election Rules, 1994 (hreinafter referred to as 'Election Rules, 1944') and public announcement was made of her election. She has further stated that the result of her election was also published in the Newspaper on 10-6-1994.

3. According to the petitioner on 15-6-1994, election of 'Up- Sarpanch' of Gram Panchayat was to be held and respondent No. 2 issued notice on 10-6-1994 to Panchas and Sarpanchas i.e. the petitioner for the said purpose. However, on 15-6-1994 when she went to participate as 'Sarpanch' in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, she was told that she is not 'Sarpanch' of the Gram Panchayat and it is respondent No. 4 who has been elected as 'Sarpanch'. In the aforesaid premises the petitioner prays for declaration by appropriate Writ that she is the duly elected 'Sarpanch' of the Gram Panchayat and she may be allowed to function as such without any impediment.

4. Two returns have been filed, one on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. the Election Officer and the Block Development Officer and other by respondent No. 4 who according to the petitioner was illegally elected as 'Sarpanch'. Their stand in the return is that because of the mistake in the return is that because of the mistake in counting of the votes there was announcement of the election of the petitioner but she was never notified as such. According to the respondents the petitioner on verification was found to have got 324 votes whereas respondent No. 4 got 399 votes and even before the election of the petitioner was notified the mistake came to the notice of the authorities concerned and accordingly respondent No. 4 was notified to have been elected to the office of 'Sarpanch' of the Gram Panchayat.

5. Shri C. L. Yadav, representing the petitioner and Shri Amar Singh representing respondent No. 4 have taken a common stand that once the election of their clients have been declared the same can be set aside only by the Election Petition and the authorities after notifying the election become functus officio and they are not permitted by law to change the result. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submission it is necessary to decide, who was notified as Sarpanch.

6. Section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. 1993 provides as under:-

Section 122. Election Petition : (1) An election or co-option under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner.

(i) in case of Gram Panchayat to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue);

(ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and

(iii) in case of Zilla Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise.

(2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election or co-option in question was notified.

Reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the election petition is the remedy contemplated after the result is notified. Rule 91 of the Election Rules 1994 reads as follows :

91. Manner of notifying election and co-option : (1) Every election and co-option of Panch, Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, and Up-sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be notified by the prescribed authority in Form 33 by affixing a notice on the notice board in its office and in the office of the Gram Panchayat and Janpad












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top