Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and S.A. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Pradhuman Verma v. State of M. P. and others
Writ Appeal No. 61 of 2017 (Gwalior): against order dated 3.1.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 1622 of 2015; Decided on 22.2.2017
N.K. Gupta with S.D. Singh for appellant; Vishal Mishra, Additional Advocate General for respondents/State; M.P. S. Rahuvanshi for respondent No. 6.
Headnote: ¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & O;kfIr & bruh O;kid gS fd vf/kdkfjrk dsoy nks vk/kkjksa ij vioftZr & çFke] mPpre U;k;ky; dh vihyh vkSj oSosfdd vf/kdkfjrk & f}rh;] Lo-vf/kjksfir fucaZ/ku & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu U;k; djus vkSj vU;k; jksdus dk vafre mís'; çkIr djus ds fy, gS & O;kidre laHko foLrkj] O;kfIr] {ks= vkSj ig¡qp HkkuiwoZd nh xbZ gSA 1993 lIyh- ¼2½ ,llhlh 433 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & lqO;är% vioftZr ugha gks rc rd ;g LokaZxh.k 'kfä LoZ-O;kid gSA ¼2000½8 ,l lh lh 216] , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 64] , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 85] , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1406] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1233] ¼1993½4 ,l lh lh 175] ¼1996½6 ,l lh lh 303 rFkk ¼1998½8 ,l lh lh 703 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7-1 ls 9
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & O;kfIr bruh O;kid gS fd fof/k] 'kq) var%dj.k] bZekunkjh] ;fä;qärk] uSlfxZd U;k;] ewy ekuo vf/kdkj dks rFkk lafo/kku dk ewy <k¡pk xfBr djus okyh lHkh /kkj.kkvksa dh fojks/kh leLr vkdfLedrk,W lfEefyr gSaA ¼iSjk 12-5
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 rFkk 243&.k & /kkjk esa vfHkO;fä ÞvkSj fdlh vU; ç;kstu ds fy,ß & fdlh Hkh lkafo/kkfud vFkok dkuwuh otZu ds gksrs gq, Hkh] mPp U;k;ky; dh laoh{kk ls fdlh Hkh voS/krk ds NwV tkus dks jksdus ds fy, HkkuiwoZd ç;qä & rFkkfi] dkuwuh mipkj miyC/k gks rc ;g 'kfä ç;qä djrs le; mPp U;k;ky; dks lrdZ jguk pkfg, & ;fn ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls –';eku voS/krk çdV gks & fuokZpu vthZ ds vuqiHkqä dkuwuh mipkj ij /;ku fn, fcuk] c`gÙkj yksd fgr esa U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfä ç;qä djuk çKkiw.kZ gksxkA ¼iSjk 12-12
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 rFkk 243&.k & e-ç- iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 & /kkjk 25 & e-ç- iapk;r ¼miljiap] v/;{k ,oa mik/;{k½ fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 & fu- 21 & e- ç- iapk;r ¼fuokZpu vftZ;‚] Hkz"Vkpkj vkSj lnL;rk ds fy, fujgZrk½ fu;e] 1995 & fu- 21 & fuokZpu ds fy, ukekadu Qkby djus ds rqjar i'pkr~ cyok vkSj [kqyh fgalk ds ckjs esa vuf/k{ksi.kh; lk{; & Lo;a ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky dh & ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us fdlh vU; vçdfVr fnukad dks cSBd LFkfxr ugha dh & çrhr gksrk gS fd vR;f/kd tYnckth vkSj varjLFk gsrq ls dk;Z fd;k & vkKkid fu;eksa dk vfrØe.k & i'pkRk~orhZ fnukad dks u, fljs ls fuokZpu djkus ds ctk; vihykFkhZ fuokZfpr ?kksf"kr & vuq- 243&.k ds v/khu lkafo/kkfud otZu ds ckotwn Hkh U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfä ç;qä dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh & mldk ç;ksx & Lora= vkSj fu"i{k fuokZpu dh /kkj.kk dks vkxs c<+krk gSA ¼2000½8 ,l lh lh 216 vuqlfjrA ¼2005½8 ,l lh lh 383 çHksfnrA 1995 ts ,y ts 651] ¼2004½7 ,l lh lh 492] ¼2006½10 ,l lh lh 616] 2015 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 687] 2015 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 234] 2015 jk fu 235] 2016¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 402] , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 1723] 2004¼7½ ,l lh lh 492 rFkk 2010 jk fu 290 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10 ls 11
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 rFkk 243&.k & e-ç- iapk;r ¼miljiap] v/;{k ,oa mik/;{k½ fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 & fu- 21 & cSBd vfuf'pr dky ds fy, LFkfxr djus dh dkuwuh ck/;rk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk fuoZfgr ugha & U;k;gkfu ls nwj jgus rFkk vuSfrd lk/kuksa ls yksdra= dk vigj.k jksdus ds fy, ofj"B U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfä dk ç;ksx vfuok;Z & tc voS/krk O;fäxr vf/kdkjksa ds vfrya?ku ek= ls lacaf/kr ugha gks vfirq yksdrkaf=d jkT;O;oLFkk dh tM+ ij gh vk?kkr djs & fjV U;k;ky; voS/krk jksdus dks ck/; gS & vihykFkhZ dks fuokZpu vthZ ds mipkj ds fy, /kdsyuk U;k;kuqer ughaA ¼2000½8 ,l lh lh 216 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12-10 ls 12-14
¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & yksdrkaf=d x.kra= dh fueZy ç—fr esa vfrpkj ds t?kU; ç;kl & flj mBkrs gh dqpy fn, tkus ;ksX; & lcls mi;qä vkSj çHkkodkjh mipkj U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfä gSA ¼iSjk 12-15
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope -- wide enough to exclude jurisdiction on only two counts -- first, appellate and discretionary jurisdiction of Supreme Court -- second, self-imposed restrictions -- judicial review is for achieving ultimate goal of rendering justice and preventing perpetration of injustice -- consciously given widest possible amplitude, scope, ambit and sweep. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 433 followed. [Para 7
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- unless expressly excluded, the plenary power is all pervasive. (2000) 8 SCC 216, AIR 1952 SC 64, AIR 1978 SC 85, AIR 1984 SC 1406, AIR 1985 SC 1233, (1993) 4 SCC 175, (1996) 6 SCC 303 and (1998) 8 SCC 703 followed. [Paras 7.1 to 9
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope - wide enough to include all contingencies abhorrent to law, good conscience, fair play, reasonableness, natural justice, basic human rights and to all concepts constituting basic structure of Constitution. [Para 12.5
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 243-O -- expression "and for any other purpose" in Art. 226 -- consciously used to prevent any illegality to escape scrutiny of High Court notwithstanding any Constitutional or statutory bar -- however, High Court ought to be circumspect while exercising this power when statutory remedy is available -- if circumstances disclose apparent illegality -- would be prudent to exercise power of judicial review in larger public interest by ignoring unavailed statutory remedy of election petition. [Para 12.12
(5) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 243-O -- M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S. 25 -- M. P. Panchayat (Up-Sarpanch, President and Vice-President) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 -- R. 21 -- M. P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 -- R. 21 -- unimpeachable evidence regarding rioting and open violence immediately after filing of nominations for election -- Presiding Officer himself lodged FIR -- failure of Presiding Officer to adjourn meeting to another undisclosed date -- seems to have acted with great haste and ulterior motive -- violated mandatory rules -- instead of holding election afresh on later date, appellant declared elected -- power of judicial review ought to have been exercised even in the face of Constitutional bar under Art. 243-O -- exercise of - furthers concept of free and fair election. (2000) 8 SCC 216 followed. (2005) 8 SCC 383 distinguished. 1995 JLJ 651, (2004) 7 SCC 492, (2006) 10 SCC 616, 2015 (4) MPLJ 687, 2015 (4) MPLJ 234, 2015 RN 235, 2016 (1) MPLJ 402, AIR 1999 SC 1723 and 2010 RN 290 referred to. [Paras 10 to 11
(6) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 243-O -- M. P. Panchayat (Up-Sarpanch, President and Vice-President) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 -- R. 21 -- statutory obligation to adjourn meeting sine die not discharged by Presiding Officer -- imperative for Superior Court to exercise power of judicial review to eschew miscarriage of justice and prevent hijacking of democracy by unscrupulous means -- when illegality does not merely pertain to infringement of personal rights but strikes at very root of democratic polity -- writ Court obliged to prevent perpetration of illegality -- relegating appellant to remedy of election petition not justified. (2000) 8 SCC 216 followed. [Paras 12.10 to 12.14
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- nefarious attempt making inroads into pristine nature of democratic republic -- deserves to be nipped in the bud -- most suitable and efficacious remedy is power of judicial review. [Para 12.15
Nagu, J.--1. This intra Court appeal filed under section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya ( Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 3.1.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1622/2015 by which the petition in question assailing the declaration of the appellant herein ( respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition) as President of Janpad Panchayat ( for brevity “JP”) has been allowed by setting aside the said election as having been held in violation of rule 21 of the M.P. Panchayat ( Up-Sarpanch, President and Vice-President Nirvachan Niyam, 1995) (“Rules 1995” for brevity) and directing for conduction of election afresh to the said office.
2. With the consent of parties, learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and for final disposal.
3. The bare facts giving rise to the present appeal are enumerated below in chronological manner :
Date
Event
2.3.2015
Collector Shivpuri directs holding of meeting of 24 newly elected members of Pohri for holding election to the Office of President and Vice-President for which date of 9.3.2015 is notified.
9.3.2015
Meeting for election to the office of President and Vice-President is held by Presiding Officer, ho framed the following election programme and conducted the election as follows :
ELECTION PROGRAMME NOTIFIED(OFFICE OF PRESIDENT)
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Filing of nominations.
12:00 noon to 12:15 p.m.
Scrutiny of nominations.
12:15p.m. to 12:45 pm
Withdrawal of nominations.
1:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Voting
Immediately after 2:00 p.m. counting and voting and declaration of result
All the 24 elected members were alleged to be present in this meeting when it began.
ELECTION PROGRAMME NOTIFIED(OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT)
2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Filing of nominations
3:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
Scrutiny of nominations
3:45 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Withdrawal of nominations
4:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Voting
Immediately after 5:30
Declaration of result
The appellant for office of President filed two nomination forms one at 11:00 am and other at 11:18 am. Whereas the petitioner/respondent No. 6 herein filed one nomination form at 11:50 a.m. for the office of president.
Immediately after filing of nominations, when some members were coming into the meeting hall violence broke loose between the rival groups outside and inside the hall, which disrupted the election process. The said disruption was complained by the Presiding Officer to be caused primarily by Pradhuman Verma (appellant herein/respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition), Arvind Dhakad, Lakhpat Dhakad, Suresh Dhakad, Naresh Dhakad, Raghuveer Dhakad and 30- 40 other persons. It was further complained that furniture in the meeting hall as well as vehicles standing outside were damaged. It was further complained that these unscrupulous elements took away one nomination form.
On the call of Presiding Officer the SP, SDM Shivpuri and police force rushed to the scene. Due to disruption the Presiding Officer adjourned the election process
At 2:30 p.m. (Vide P-4)
The Presiding Officer G.S.Baghel lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 55/2015 alleging offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427 and 186 IPC read with 127 of Representation of Peoples Act against the above said six persons and 30-40 other unnamed persons.
At 2:30 p.m.
The presiding Officer recommenced the election process which had been adjourned due to violence and rioting directed for announcement by loudspeaker in the town of Pohri that for the office of President the voting s
