Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.M. KHANWILKAR, SANJAY YADAV, JJ.
AKHILESH PANDEY - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. - Respondent
W.P. No. 20010 of 2014
Decided On : 20-12-2014
For the Petitioner:S.P. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Swapnil Ganguly, Dy. Government Advocate.
For the State Election Commission : Siddharth Seth, learned Counsel.
The time frame specified in the impugned notification is not in conflict with the governing statutory provisions as the elections are governed by state enactments and not conducted under the Central enactment of 1951.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - State Election Commission - The court dismissed the petition challenging the order issued by the State Election Commission notifying the elections for the concerned Panchayat, stating that the Constitutional bar under Article 243-O prevents the court from entertaining the petition. The aggrieved persons can file election disputes as provided under the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. The court emphasized that the elections are governed by state enactments and are not conducted under the Central enactment of 1951, therefore, the time frame specified in the impugned notification is not in conflict with the governing statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the order issued by the State Election Commission notifying the elections for the concerned Panchayat.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, citing the Constitutional bar under Article 243-O and stating that the aggrieved persons can file election disputes as provided under the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.
Issues: The issue is whether the time frame specified in the impugned notification is in conformity with the governing statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The elections are governed by state enactments and are not conducted under the Central enactment of 1951, therefore, the time frame specified in the impugned notification is not in conflict with the governing statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The petition fails and is dismissed. The dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to avail other remedy of election dispute on the grounds as may be permissible in law.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. This petition filed as Public Interest Litigation challenges the order issued by the State Election Commission dated 15.12.2014 notifying the elections for the concerned Panchayat.
3. Since the election programme has already commenced in terms of the impugned order, in view of the Constitutional bar under Article 243-O, it is not open for this Court to entertain this petition, that too on the ground which can be agitated by the aggrieved persons by filing election dispute as provided under the Rule 21(1)(d) (iv) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. That provision enables the aggrieved person to challenge the election of the returned candidates on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or Rules or Orders made thereunder.
4. In the present case, the argument is that the time frame specified in the impugned notification is not in conformity with Section 30 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
5. In the first place, the elections of Panchayat are governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Rules, 1995 and M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. These enactments are self-contained code. The ground urged by the petitioner cannot be countenanced because the same is founded on Central enactment of 1951. The elections in question are not conducted under the Central enactment, but under the State enactment. No provision in the Constitution or State enactment has been brought to our notice to suggest that the time frame provided in the impugned notification is not in conformity with the said provisions. Nor any provision in the State enactment is pointed out that in absence of express provision in the State enactment the time frame specified in Section 30 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 must be followed. Thus, there is no substance in the argument that the notification dated 15.12.2014 is in conflict with or repugnant to any of the governing statutory provision.
6. Accordingly, this petition fails, the same is dismissed.
7. It is made clear that the dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to avail other remedy of election dispute on the grounds as may be permissible in law.
