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

2016 Supreme(MP) 923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
ROHIT ARYA, J.
Smt. Guddi w/o Raghvendra Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
The Prescribed Authority Cum Sub Divisional officer, Niwadi and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 14022 of 2015
Decided On : 08-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri Divesh Jain, Government Advocate., Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate.

Non-compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995 shall result in dismissal of the election petition.

Headnote:

Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam - Election Petition - Rule 3 (2) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 - Summary: The court discussed the mandatory requirement of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995, which prescribes the procedure for presentation of the election petition and the consequences of non-compliance. The court emphasized that non-compliance of Rule 3(2) shall result in dismissal of the election petition. The specified officer's decision to dismiss the election petition was found to be in compliance with the law and the court declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

An election petition was filed challenging the election of a candidate. The respondent raised objections regarding non-compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995, which were rejected by the specified officer. The petitioner approached the court, arguing that the objections were not valid and the specified officer had refused to exercise jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the specified officer's decision to dismiss the election petition was in compliance with the law and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of objections raised under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995, and the jurisdiction of the specified officer in dismissing the election petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 3(2) and the consequences of non-compliance, stating that it shall result in dismissal of the election petition. The specified officer's decision was found to be in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as lacking in merits.

ORDER :

ROHIT ARYA, J.

1. The election petitioner before the specified officer under the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, has approached this court taking exception to the order dated 6.8.2015 passed by the specified officer while dismissing the election petition under section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 for the reason of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Rule 3 (2) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short 'Rules, 1995') in the matter of submission of copy of the attested election petition under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that an election petition was filed on 2.2.2015 assailing election of the respondent no.2 returned candidate on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Taricharkhurd, Tahsil Niwadi, District Tikamgarh on several grounds. The election was held on 13.1.2015 and the result was declared on 17.1.2015.

3. On receipt of notice along with copy of the election petition, the respondent no. 2 had filed an objection on 17.6.2015 under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, 1995, inter-alia raising two fold submissions that the copy of the election petition submitted by the petitioner is not the certified copy and page 3 of the election petition does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The objection was rejected by the specified officer on 17.6.2015 primarily on the premises that the election petition was at advance stage of trial and fixed for arguments. Challenging the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 - returned candidate filed writ petition in this court. The same was registered as W.P.No.8986/2015. This court while disposing of the writ petition on 21.7.2015 had directed the specified officer to deal with the objection raised under Ruler 3 (2) of the Rules, 1995 on merits at the time of finally deciding the election petition. It appears the aforesaid objection was taken into consideration by the specified officer. On perusal of the record found that the petitioner's signatures are not found at page 3 of the copy of the election petition, therefore, the copies submitted by the petitioner's could not be said to be duly attested true copy of the election petition; mandatory requirement of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995, consequently, dismissed the election petition by the impugned order.

4. Questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions :-

(I) As per the record available only copies in excess to the copies of the election petition served upon the respondents, signature of the election petition is not found at page 3 of the election petition, therefore, even if , there is non-compliance of the Rule 3 (2), the same shall have no bearing, resulting into dismissal of the election petition.

(ii) The respondent no. 2 himself has not stated specifically that in the copy of the election petition served upon him, signature of the election petitioner is not found at page 3 of the election petition. Therefore, such an objection ought not to have been countenanced on behalf of the respondent no. 2. The omission of signature of the petitioner at page 3 of the copy of the election petition is a curable defect and the petitioner ought to have been permitted to correct the same. That having not been done, the specified officer has refused to exercise his jurisdiction and thereafter passed the impugned order dismissing the election petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have made following submissions :-

(a) Referring to the objection filed before the specified officer, Annexure-P-6, dated 17.6.2015, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the objection raised on the basis of copy of the election petition served upon the respondent no. 2 wherein the signature of the petitioner was not found at page 3













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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