Smt. Maya Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10163 MP

                                                                        1
                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                                WP No. 17105 of 2022
                                                (SMT. MAYA PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                    Dated : 27-07-2022
                                          Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned Senior counsel, with Shri Bhoopesh

                                    Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                          Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General, with Shri Lalit
                                    Joglekar, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent/State.

Shri Pravanlaghn Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the election on the post of Member, Jila Panchayat, Panna for Ward No.2, as stipulated under Rule 28 of the M.P.Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 was notified vide notification dated 27.05.2022. In the aforesaid election, the petitioner had submitted her nomination for the said post. There were total 13 candidates, who finally contested against the post of Member, Jila Panchayat, Panna for Ward No.2. There were as many as 70 polling booths/polling stations notified by the competent authority. On the prescribed day, the votes were casted by the

respective voters. Thereafter, the counting of votes took place on 25- 26.06.2022. After completion of counting of votes, the respective polling stations issued the result sheet to the respective candidates or to their polling agents. The result was scheduled on 14.07.2022.

According to the votes mentioned in the result sheet, the petitioner was Signature Not Verified SAN emerging as a winning candidate having secured more votes and the petitioner Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.07.28 12:28:23 IST was likely to be declared elected. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know

from reliable sources that a conspiracy is being hatched to manipulate the election of Ward No.2 in order to ensure the defeat of the petitioner at the stage of tabulation of the result on 14.07.2022.

The apprehension of the petitioner came to be true when the results were manipulated. In the tabulation there was overwriting and as such the total votes secured by the petitioner was reduced; whereas the votes of other candidates were siphoned of and added to the list of respondent no.7. On the basis of such manipulation, the respondent no.7 was declared elected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has filed the certified copy of the result sheet of 70 booths, which gives the

figures of votes polled at each booth as well as the petitioner saw the original tabulation in which certain overwriting and manipulation have been done only with the purpose to declare respondent no.7 as elected. This has been deliberately done by the Collector because the husband of petitioner, being a public spirited person, had filed a complaint before Lokayukt and other authorities. He further submitted that the manipulation of result sheet not only destroys the sanctity of the election but also put a dent on the democratic values.

On the other hand, Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General, appeared for the State and opposed the prayer and submitted that this petition is not maintainable in the light of Rule 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. The case of the petitioner falls within the grounds mentioned therein for declaration any election to be void as well as Rule 22 of Signature Not Verified SAN

the Rules, 1995 which provides for corrupt practices, as such the petition Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.07.28 12:28:23 IST

deserves to be dismissed. Moreover, Article 243(O)(b) of the Constitution of

India put a bar to interfere in the election matters.

In reply, the learned Senior counsel for petitioner contended that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable, even if there is a constitutional bar under Article 243(O)(b) of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case o f Pradhuman Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others, AIR 2017 MP 71 (Gwalior Bench)(DB). He further submitted that no ground is available to the petitioner, as per the provisions enumerated in Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules, 1995, to file the election petition, therefore, in such a situation where the fundamental rights as well as the democratic process are being infringed, writ is maintainable for the purpose to uphold the law.

In view of the aforesaid situation, the counsel for respondent no.2 is directed to produce the original tabulation register and the result sheet of 70 booths for perusal of this Court positively on the next date of hearing.

List this case on 04.08.2022.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

TG /-

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.07.28 12:28:23 IST