MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sheel Nagu, J.
Arjun Singh Parihar - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
WP. 535-2015
Decided On : 23-01-2015
Voter List - Panchayat Elections - M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (1995 Niyam) - Rule 12 (5), Rule 28, Rule 15, Rule 15 (A), Rule 12 (A)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's name was wrongly removed from the voter list for the Panchayat Elections, and he was unable to contest the elections. The petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed period against the removal of his name.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that no amendment to the voter list could take place after the publication of the election program under Rule 28. However, the court emphasized that the power of judicial review is not curtailed by statutory provisions and can be exercised with caution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the removal of the petitioner's name from the voter list, the prescribed appeal period, and the timing of the election program publication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no amendment to the voter list could take place after the publication of the election program under Rule 28. However, the power of judicial review is not curtailed by statutory provisions and can be exercised with caution.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed without costs.
Sheel Nagu, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:-
2. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that his name has been wrongly removed from the voter list published in the ongoing Panchayat Elections of Gram Panchayat Gujarra, Janpad Panchayat Datia and therefore, he is unable to contest elections which is statutory right.
3. The undisputed fact which come to light from the pleadings in the petition are that on 18.10. 2014 registration authority deleted the name of the petitioner and his other family members whereafter the petitioner has not preferred any appeal within five days prescribed for the same under Rule 12 (5) of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (1995 Niyam for brevity). The appeal of the petitioner was infact preferred on 12.11. 2014 which was much after the prescribed period of five days.
4. It is not further disputed that notification under Rule 28 of the 1995 Rules has since been issued and the election process to the three tier Panchayats are at an advanced stage where polling of the first phase is to be held on 5th of February, 2015.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent on advance notice, this court deems it appropriate to dismissed this petition in limine.
6. Rule 15 and 15 (A) Provide for appeal against change in the voter list finally published after the same is finalised under Rule 12 (4) subject to the orders passed by the appellate authority under Rule 12 (5) provided by appellate authority in appeals filed in accordance with law under Rule 12 (5). Rule 12 (A) is an exception to Rule 15, empowering Registration Officer to delete wrongfully included names in the voter list finalized under Rule 12.
7. The enabling Provisions under Rule 12 (5) and 15 (A) (I) bestows power upon the appellate and Registration Authority to amend the finalized voter list subject to the fact that the notification under Rule 28 publishing the time schedule for the election has not been issued.
8. It is undisputed and well known fact that the notification under Rule 28 has been published on 15.12.2014.
9. In view of the bar contained in statutory provisions under the 1995 Rules, no amendment can take place after publication of notification under Rule 28 As such even if the contention of the petitioner are held to be true no amendment should be done to the voter list which has been finalised after publication of the election programme under Rule 28.
10. At this juncture this court hastens to add that the above said finding may not be read as a complete bar to the election process being amenable to writ jurisdiction. The power of judicial review is plenary in nature and is concomitant of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore cannot be curtailed by any statutory or even constitutional embargo. However this power needs to be exercised with due care and caution.
11. When judicial review is sought for intervention in matters of ongoing election progress, the court adopts caution and circumspection of a much higher degree and only where exceptional case of rampant irregularity and illegality is made out and where election process if allowed to continue would, lead to injustice to the majority of the electorate and would be a farce, that the superior court steps in. The Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Ors. reported in : (2000) 8 SCC 216 has summed up the law laid down in this respect regarding scope and interference in election matter of exercising power of judicial review by superior courts after restating earlier decisions rendered by it in the following manner :-
(1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedi
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.