Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 578
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT)
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Satish and another v. M.P. State Election Commission and others
Writ Petition No.869 of 2015 (Indore); against order dated 16.1.2015 passed by M.P. State Election Commission; Decided on 27.4.2015.
Akash Rathi for petitioners; Sunil Jain with A. K. Khare for respondents No.1 to 3; Ms. M. Ravindran for respondent No.4;
Ajay Bagadiya for respondents No.5 & 6.
Headnote: ¼1½ iapk;r fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-28 rFkk 18 & xzke iapk;r ds ljiap in ds fy, fuokZpu dh rkjh[k vf/klwfpr & laoh{kk ds i'pkr~ ;kph Øekad 2 dk uke funas’ku i= Lohdkj fd;k x;k & izR;FkhZ Øekad 5 ,oa 6 ds uke ernkrk lwph esa lfEefyr djus ij vkifÙk dh xbZ & fjVfuZx vkWQhlj }kjk izR;FkhZ Øekad 6 dk uke funsZ’ku i= [kkfjt fd;k x;k & ,slk vkns’k e-iz- jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx ds le{k vk{ksfir fd;k x;k & fuokZpu vk;ksx dks fuokZpu jí djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS & ;kfpdk eatwj dh xbZA 1985 ts ,y ts 651 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 64] , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 851] , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 921] ¼1985½4 ,l lh lh 628 rFkk ¼1994½3 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 1 ,oa 12
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-243-.k¼[k½ & iapk;r ds fuokZpu dk fookn & fuokZpu vthZ ds vykok iz’uxr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vuqPNsn 243-.k¼[k½ ds vèkhu gLr{ksi oftZr gSA ¼iSjk 9
(1) Panchayat Nirvachan Rules, 1995 (M.P.) -- Rr.28 and 18 -- date of election for seat of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat notified -- nomination paper of petitioner No.2 accepted after scrutiny -- inclusion of name of respondents No.5 and 6 in voter list objected -- nomination paper of respondent No.6 rejected by Returning Officer -- such order challenged before M.P. State Election Commission -- Election Commission has no jurisdiction to cancel the election -- petition allowed. 1985 JLJ 651 relied on. AIR 1952 SC 64, AIR 1978 SC 851, AIR 1984 SC 921, (1985)4 SCC 628 and (1994)3 SCC 1 followed. [Paras 11 & 12
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.243-O(b) -- election dispute to Panchayat -- cannot be questioned except by election petition -- interference is barred under Article 243-O(b). [Para 9
1. Heard finally with consent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of M.P. State Election Commission dated 16.1.2015 countermanding the election to the post of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Kansrod, Tahsil Pachore, District Rajgarh.
3. The case of petitioners is that the elections were notified under rule 28 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for short Rules, 1995) and nomination forms for the seat of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Kansrod Tahsil Pachore were invited from 1.1.2015 to 7.1.2015. The scrutiny of nomination paper was scheduled for 8.1.2015 and the polling was to take place on 22.2.2015. Further case of petitioners is that petitioner No.2 had submitted the nomination paper and after its scrutiny the nomination paper of petitioner No.2 was accepted. Petitioner No.1 had objected to the inclusion of name of respondents No.5 and 6 in the voter list and after enquiry name was deleted from voter list by the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 7.1.2015 and nomination paper of respondent No.6 was rejected by Returning Officer on 8.1.2015. The respondents No.5 and 6 had challenged the order of rejection of Nomination form before respondent No.2 State Election Commission and State Election Commission vide order dated 16.1.2015 has cancelled the election. An issue has been raised before this Court that the State Election Commission was not competent to cancel the election.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that State Election Commission had no jurisdiction to cancel the election. He further submits that name of respondents No.5 and 6 was not in the provisional list and in the final list it was incorrectly included therefore, the Sub-Divisional officer by order dated 7.1.2015 had rightly deleted the name and no error was committed by the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination form of respondent No.6. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is without authority of law.
5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has opposed the writ petition submitting that since the name of respondents No.5 and 6 was deleted from the voter list in violation of the rule 15 and 15A of Rules, 1995, therefore, the election Commission has rightly countermanded the election.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 has submitted that there was no material before the Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the order dated 7.1.2015 to hold that name of respondents No.5 and 6 was included in the voter list on account of clerical error. He further submits that against this order an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner and Additional Commissioner had granted stay in favour of respondents No.5 and 6 on 8.1.12015, therefore, Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination form of respondents No.5 and 6.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order dated 16.1.2015 has failed to disclose under which provision of MP Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1995 or the Rules of 1995 he has countermanded or cancelled the election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The only reason which has been assigned by respondent No.2 to countermand the election is that name of respondents No.5 and 6 was deleted from the voter list in contravention of certain rules of Rules, 1995 such as rule 15 and 15-A etc.
8. In the reply before this Court also the respondents No.1 and 2 have failed to disclose the provisions of law under which respondent No.2 has countermanded the election.
9. Under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, there is bar to interfere in election matters and in terms of Article 243-O (b) no election to any Panchayat can be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the L
