Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R.S. Jha and B.D. Rathi, JJ.
Kallo Adiwasi (Smt.) v. The State Election Commission M.P., Bhopal
and others
Writ Appeal No.54 of 2015 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 20.2.2015, passed in Writ Petition No.417/2005; Decided on 11.9.2015.
Held : It is luminescently clear that the present case is one of rejection of the nomination paper for which a remedy of filing an election petitioner has been provided to the aggrieved person in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition and relegated the petitioner to avail of the remedy of election petition.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, filed by the appellant, being meritless is, accordingly dismissed. AIR 1952 SC 64, (1995) Supp.(2) SCC 305, (1996)6 SCC 303, (1998)9 SCC 594 and (2006)10 SCC 616 followed. AIR 1995 M.P. 271, 1998(2) JLJ 328, 1995 JLJ 651 and (1994)4 SCC 526 distinguished. AIR 1978 SC 851, (1985)4 SCC 628 and (1994)3 SCC 1 referred to.
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.226, 227 and 243O(b) -- M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S.122 -- M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 -- R.35(2) -- wrongful rejection of nomination paper -- writ petition against such rejection of nomination paper -- not maintainable -- remedy is by way of election petition. [Paras 5,12 & 13
(3) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S.122 -- M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 -- R.35(2) -- Constitution of India -- Arts.226, 227 and 243O(b) -- wrongful rejection of nomination paper -- writ petition against such rejection of nomination paper -- not maintainable -- remedy is by way of election petition. [Paras 5, 12 & 13
¼1½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½ && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226] 227 rFkk 243&.k¼[k½ && e-iz- iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 && /kkjk 122 && ukefunsZ'ku&i= dk lnks"k vLohd`r fd;k tkuk && dk mipkj && fuokZpu ;kfpdk }kjk gS && ukefunsZ'ku&i= vLohd`r fd, tkus ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && pykus ;ksX; ugha && ;kfpdk lgh&gh [kkfjt dh xbZ vkSj ;kph dks fuokZpu ;kfpdk dk mipkj miyH; djus ds fy, <dsyk x;k && gLr{ksi visf{kr ugha && fjV vihy [kkfjt dh xbZA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g lanhfIr% Li"V gS fd ;g izdj.k ,d ukefunsZ'ku&i= vLohd`r fd, tkus dk gS ftlds fy, ifjosfnr O;fDr dks fof/k }kjk fofgr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj mipkj micaf/kr gSA ¼iSjk 5
mi;qZDr foospu ds n`f"Vdks.k ls ;g izdV gS fd fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh'k us ;kfpdk lgh&gh [kkfjt dh gS vkSj ;kph dks fuokZpu ;kfpdk dk mipkj miyH; djus ds fy, <dsyk x;k gSA
mi;qZDr n`f"Vdks.k ls] fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dk ge dksbZ vk/kkj ugha ikrs gSaA vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ fjV vihy xq.kkxq.k jfgr gS] rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 64] ¼1995½ lIyh-¼2½ ,l lh lh 305] ¼1996½6 ,l lh lh 303] ¼1998½9 ,l lh lh 594 rFkk ¼2006½10 ,l lh lh 616 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1995 e-iz- 271] 1998¼2½ ts ,y ts 328] 1995 ts ,y ts 651 rFkk ¼1999½4 ,l lh lh 526 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 581] ¼1985½4 ,l lh lh 628 rFkk ¼1994½3 ,l lh lh 1 fufnZ"VA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226] 227 rFkk 243.k¼[k½ && e-iz- iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 && /kkjk 122 && e-iz- iapk;r fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 &&
fu-35¼2½ && ukefunsZ'ku&i= dk lnks"k vLohd`r fd;k tkuk && ukefunsZ'ku&i= ds ,sls vLohd`r fd, tkus ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && pykus ;ksX; ugha && mipkj fuokZpu ;kfpdk }kjk gSA ¼iSjk 5] 12 ,oa 13
¼3½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 122 && e-iz- iapk;r fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 && fu-35¼2½ && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226] 227 rFkk 243.k¼[k½ && ukefunsZ'ku&i= dk lnks"k vLohd`r fd;k tkuk && ukefunsZ'ku&i= ds ,sls vLohd`r fd, tkus ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && pykus ;ksX; ugha && mipkj fuokZpu ;kfpdk }kjk gSA ¼iSjk 5] 12 ,oa 13
Jha, J. -- 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by order dated 20.2.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.417/2005, whereby the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging rejection of her nomination and the election and certificate issued to the respondent No.5 as Sarpanch.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against rejection of her nomination papers which have been filed for the purposes of contesting election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Naraiya Khedi, Tahsil Pohri, District Shivpuri, on the ground that the petition was barred in view of the provisions of Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case the petitioner had filed her nomination papers on 7.1.2015 and the nomination papers were required to be scrutinized on 8.1.2015 as per the election programme published by the authorities. However, the returning officer by wrongly taking up the matter on 9.1.2015 rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner, being aggrieved by which the petitioner had filed a petition before this Court. It is stated that on account of fraud and manipulation by the returning officer, the entire election process was vitiated and in such circumstances the learned Single Judge has erred in not exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel, relying on the decisions rendered in the case of Ranvir Singh v. State of M.P. and another [AIR 1995 MP 271], Anjana Mulkarwar v. State of M.P. and others [1998(2) JLJ 328], K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan and another [(1999)4 SCC 526], and State Election Commission,l M.P. v. Ras Bihari Raghuwanshi [1995 JLJ 651=1996 MPLJ 966], submits that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in extraordinary cases in election disputes also and, therefore, the dismissal of the petition by the learned Single Judge by stating that the only remedy available to the petitioner was an election petition is not in accordance with law.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. From a perusal thereof it is luminescently clear that the present case is one of rejection of the nomination paper for which a remedy of filing an election petition has been provided to the aggrieved person in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
6. Apparently and admittedly, the present case relates to wrongful rejection of the nomination papers filed under the provisions of section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the election petition under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Elelction Rules with the specific provisions for assailing the election on the ground of rejection of nomination papers. In the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namaklal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and others [AIR 1952 SC 64], this was the very issue before the Supreme Court and in that case the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the provisions of Article 329B which is pari materia and similarly worded as Article 243(O)(b) has held that a writ petition cannot be filed assailing such rejection of nomination papers in view of the Constitutional bar and that the remedy of filing an election petition has to be availed.
7. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti and others [1995 Supp.(2) SCC 305], Anugrah Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others [(1996)6 SCC 303], Jaspal Singh Arora v. State of M.P. and others [(1998)9 SCC 594], and Gurdeep Singh Dhillon v. Satpal and others [(2006)10 SCC 616].
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.
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
