Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUJOY PAUL, J.
Rani Maraskole – Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
W.P.No. 8065 of 2015
Decided On : 08-02-2016
Election Petition - Recounting of Votes - M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Section 122 - Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind (1976) 1 SCC 687, Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria v. Ram Gopal Singh, 1976 (1) SCC 43, Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma, (1975) 4 SCC 393, Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Beharilal Kachi, (1975) 4 SCC 417, Gendalal v. Narayan Acharya and others, 1981 JLJ 163, R. Narayan v. Semmalai and others, 1980 (2) SCC 537 - The judgment discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to recounting of votes in election petitions under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and highlighted the necessity for specific pleadings and high standard of evidence to order recounting, the importance of secrecy of ballot, and the limitations on the Election Tribunal's power to order recounting based on consent or low margin of victory.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kheritia Gram Panchayat Kheritaygaon, Tehsil Sausar, District Chhindwara. The election petitioner challenged the petitioner's election as Sarpanch, leading to orders for recounting of votes by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petitioner's pleadings and evidence were insufficient to support the order for recounting, and the Tribunal's actions, including delegation of recounting power and reliance on consent and low margin of victory, were contrary to the legal principles established by previous judgments.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of pleadings and evidence for ordering recounting, the validity of the Tribunal's actions based on consent and low margin of victory, and the legality of delegating recounting power to other authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that specific pleadings and high standard of evidence are necessary for ordering recounting, consent does not confer jurisdiction on the Election Tribunal to direct recount, low margin of victory alone cannot be a ground for recounting, and the Tribunal cannot delegate recounting power without enabling provision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders for recounting and allowed the petition, emphasizing that there is no estoppel against law and the election process cannot be upheld on hyper technical grounds.
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. The petitioner contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kheritia Gram Panchayat Kheritaygaon, Tehsil Sausar, District Chhindwara. The petitioner contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kheritia Gram Panchayat Kheritaygaon, Tehsil Sausar, District Chhindwara.
2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner's election was called in question by the respondent No.4 by filing a petition under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam' for short).
3. The petitioner entered appearance in the said proceedings of election petition and filed his reply. Admittedly, no issues were framed by the Election Tribunal. The election petitioner entered the witness box and deposed his statement. In due course, the petitioner also entered the witness box and deposed his statement.
4. The Tribunal passed the order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure-P/6). In this impugned order, the Tribunal directed for recounting of the votes. Accordingly, certain Officers were delegated with the power to undertake the exercise of recounting.
5. The Tribunal passed another order impugned herein dated 27.05.2015 and found that after recounting, the election petitioner has obtained more votes than the present petitioner. This order dated 27.05.2015 was sent for approval before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Chhindwara.
6. Criticizing the order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure-P/6) and 27.05.2015, Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel contended that the said orders are contrary to the settled legal position. It is further urged that the approval is accorded by the Sub Divisional Officer only on 08.06.2015. Shri Nagrath by taking this Court to the averments of the election petition contended that there was no averments on the strength of which recounting could have been ordered. He submits that in absence of material facts and reliable evidence, recount could not have been ordered. He submits that in absence of framing issue in relation to need of recount, recount could not have been ordered. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that the secrecy of vote is sacrosanct in democratic process and it cannot be tinkered on mere asking. It is urged that petitioner's statement during cross-examination cannot be a ground for issuing a direction for recount. It is further urged that low margin of victory (4 votes in the present case) cannot also be a ground for recounting. Lastly it is urged that for the purpose of recounting, the powers cannot be delegated to any other authority by the Tribunal. Shri Nagrath contends that the Election Tribunal is a statutory Tribunal as per the Adhiniyam. There was no occasion for the Tribunal to seek approval of its order from any other Authority (SDO in the present case).
7. Smt. D.K. Bohre, learned Govt. Advocate and Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel supported the impugned orders. Shri Singh contends that at the time of counting, respondent No.4 filed an objection under Rule 80 of Nirvachan Niyam. He relied on Para 4 to 11 of the election petition in support of his contention that material pleadings are there in the election petition. He submits that consent of present petitioner during cross-examination is sufficient for ordering recount. Shri Singh further submits that after having given said consent, the petitioner is 'estopped' and cannot raise his eyebrows. It is further urged that for the purpose of recounting, the Tribunal has to appoint somebody and it cannot undertake the said task. It is further submitted that during recount, both the parties signed the proceedings and, therefore, petitioner now cannot challenge the said order. It is submitted that after recount on 27.05.2015, the certificate in favour of respondent No.4 was issued on 10.06.2015. In obedience thereof, the respondent No.4 took charge on 12.06.2015. In support of arguments relating to estoppel, he relied on (2003) 1 SCC 108. It is submitt
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
