Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Anand Pathak, J.
Tarabai – Appellant
Versus
Shanti Bai and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 7120 of 2015
Decided On : 21-09-2017
C.P.C. - Election Petition - M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Section 122 - M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7 - Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. in the context of the election petition filed under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the deficiencies as per M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995. The court emphasized the importance of recording reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, citing the judgment in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and highlighted the principles of justice, transparency, and accountability in decision-making. The court also discussed the significance of natural justice and the requirement to give reasons for decisions, as well as the duty of administrative authorities to incorporate reasons as part of their decision-making process. The court emphasized the need for clarity in governance and the reduction of pending cases through the assignment of reasons in orders. The judgment also addressed the duty of administrative authorities to record reasons and the consequences of failing to do so, citing relevant case law and principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the parties to appear before the authority for further hearing on the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. regarding the maintainability of an election petition challenging the election on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Lachayara, Block Kurwai District Vidisha. The election petition carried deficiencies as per M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995. The Election Tribunal framed issues, including the maintainability of the election petition. The petitioner's application was dismissed, and the subsequent writ petition challenged the lack of reasons in the order. The court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of recording reasons in judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. However, the authority passed the same order without providing reasons, leading to the petitioner's contention of willful disobedience and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order lacked reasons, displaying arbitrariness and illegality. It emphasized the importance of recording reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, citing the judgment in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and highlighted the principles of justice, transparency, and accountability in decision-making. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the parties to appear before the authority for further hearing on the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the election petition, the duty of administrative authorities to record reasons, and the consequences of failing to do so. The court also addressed the violation of natural justice and the repeated lack of reasons in the authority's orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of recording reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, citing the judgment in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and highlighted the principles of justice, transparency, and accountability in decision-making. The court also discussed the significance of natural justice and the requirement to give reasons for decisions, as well as the duty of administrative authorities to incorporate reasons as part of their decision-making process.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the parties to appear before the authority for further hearing on the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C.
1. This is second visit of petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 23.09.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 10 whereby the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. has been rejected. Precisely stated facts of the case for adjudication are that respondent No. 1-Smt. Shanti Bai filed an election petition under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 whereby election on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Lachayara, Block Kurwai District Vidisha was challenged. As per the submissions and pleadings contained in petition memo, election petition carried certain deficiencies as per M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995. It further appears that the Election Tribunal framed the issues and issue No. 3 was framed about maintainability of election petition, therefore, petitioner filed an application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. that issue No. 3 which was framed regarding maintainability of election petition is a legal issue, hence, the same be heard and decided as preliminary issue. The said contention was duly replied by the election petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) admitting the fact that on the date of filing of election petition, security deposit was not made and security deposit was made to Tahsildar on 26.04.2015, after filing the election petition on 24.02.2015. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner; violation of rule 7 of Rules of 1995 was apparent and being a mandatory condition, the said question ought to have been considered by the authority as preliminary issue. In the case of election of Gram Panchayat specified authority is Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) and as respondent No. 10 was holding the said post at the relevant point of time, therefore, arrayed as party respondent (later on; after filing of writ petition). The authority vide order dated 01-07-2015 dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. in a slipshod manner. Annexure P/6 reveals that no reason has been assigned for dismissal of the application nor any conclusion has been arrived at for such dismissal.
2. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred writ petition bearing No. 4567/2015 in which vide order dated 21.07.2015, this Court allowed the petition on the ground that the order passed by the SDO lacks any reason or finding whereas reasons are heartbeat of every judicial order. Matter was remanded back to the authority for fresh adjudication of the controversy wherein application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. had to be decided afresh. Respondent No. 10 again passed the same cryptic order dated 23.09.2015 vide Annexure P/1; which is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, when Sub Divisional Officer earlier passed the order dated 01.07.2015 then this Court found the said order bereft of any reason and therefore, while deciding the said petition, remanded the matter back for consideration of application under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. afresh. Still respondent No. 10 showed the same attitude and passed the order in a slipshod manner without assigning any reason. Same is arbitrary, illegal and contemptuous in nature. Quasi judicial authority is duty bound to pass reasoned order so that it can be analyzed by the higher authority objectively when matter goes into appeal or revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 10 has not considered spirit of earlier order passed by this Court and repeated the same mistake, therefore, respondent No. 10 be suitably punished for the willful disobedience of the order in not adhering to the directions given by this Court in writ petition. Besides the arguments on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the ground of violation of principle of natural justice also. He referred the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kr
AI
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
