IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA th ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 326 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

RAMCHANDRA PATIDAR S/O MAGNIRAMJI PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST RICHALAL MUNHA TEHSIL DALODA, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI LOKESH KUMAR BHATNAGAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER CUM COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT NIRVACHAN, JANPAD PANCHYAT, M A N D S A U R COLLECTORATE OFFICE, MANDSAUR,DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR, MANDSAUR DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SUB DIVISION MANDSAUR DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. MADHU SUDAN S/O HARIVALLABH PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS KESHAV KUNJ, YASH NAGAR, MANDSAUR, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. MUKESH S/O BALMUKUND PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, GRAM RINCHALAL MUHA, TEHSIL DALODA, DISTRICT MANDSAUR Signature Not Verified (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (STATE BY MS. ASHI VAIDYA, ADVOCATE)

(RESPONDENT NO.5 BY SHRI GAURAV LAAD, ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2022, whereby the election petition filed by him has been dismissed.

02. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, respondents No.5 & 6 contested the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Richalalmunha, Janpad Mandsaur held on 25.06.2022. In the said election, respondent No.5 was elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner challenge the said election by way of election petition under Section 122(2) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short the Adhiniyam of 1993) before the Specified Officer on the ground that he is already enrolled as a voter in the voter list of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mandsaur, Ward No.39, at serial No.2, therefore, his name was not liable to be included in the voter list of Gram Panchayat -

Richalalmunha.

03. After notice in the election petition, the respondent filed a reply by submitting that before inclusion of his name as voter in the voter list of Gram Panchayat, he got deleted his name from the voter list of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mandsaur.

04. The Specified Officer considered the aforesaid reply and dismissed the election petition on the ground that at the time of nomination, the petitioner did not raise any objection, therefore, now the election petition cannot be Signature Not Verified entertained on the said ground. Hence, the present writ petition is before this Court.

05. It is a settled law that the election petition is liable to be decided like a civil suit after framing the issues recording the evidence. The election petition cannot be decided by adopting summary procedure. Procedure to be followed by the Specified Officer are given in Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership)

Rules, 1995 (in short Rules of 1995).

06. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1995 provides that it shall be the duty of the parties to produce witnesses on the date fixed for evidence. Rule 21 of the Rules of 1995 deals with the ground for declaring the election to be void. The election is liable to be declared void if the Specified Officer is of the opinion that there is non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or any Rules or order made thereunder. Therefore, the election petition is liable to be decided on the grounds mentioned in Rule 21 of the Rules of 1995 and not to be dismissed on the ground that election petitioner did not raise any objection at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper.

07. In the present case, the Specified Officer neither framed the issues nor called the parties to adduce the eviden