Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mamta Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 9th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 15326 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. MAMTA PANDEY W/O SHRI SANDEEP
PANDEY , AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE AND POST
NAKAILA, TEHSIL AND JANPAD PANCHAYAT
MAJHGAWAN DISTRICT- SATNA, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AWADHESH KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MINISTRY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY 58 NIRVACHAN BHAWAN ARERA
HILLS BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT ELECTION
O F F I C E R (PAN CHAYAT) SATNA DISTRICT
SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) CUM
RETURNING OFFICER (ELECTION) TAHSIL AND
JANPAD PANCHAYAT MAJHGAWAN DISTRICT
SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PRESIDING OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
WARD NO. 4 POLLING BOOTH NO. 53 GRAM
PANCHAYAT SINGHPUR DISTRICT SATNA M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
6. PRESIDING OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
SAN
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
MAJHGAWAN WARD NO 4 POLLING BOOTH NO.
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:30 IST
60 GRAM PANCHAYAT SANDA DISTRICT SATNA
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
7. PRESIDING OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
M AJHGAWAN WARD NO. 4 POLLING BOOTH
NO. 62 GRAM PANCHAYAT MALGAUNSA
DISTRICT SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. PRESIDING OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
MAJHGAWAN WARD NO 4 POLLING BOOTH NO.
63 GRAM PANCHAYAT MALGAUNSA DISTRICT
SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. PRESIDING OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
M AJHGAWAN WARD NO. 4 POLLING BOOTH
NO. 64 GRAM PANCHAYAT MALGAUNSA
CHADVANIYA DISTRICT SATNA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. VINOD KUMAR YADAV S/O NOT MENTION R/O
VILLAGE MALGAUNSA TAHSIL AND JANPAD
PANCHAYAT MAJHGAWAN DISTRICT SATNA
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS/STATE BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, GOVT.
ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SETH,
ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 for recounting of votes
of Polling Booth No.53, 60, 62, 63 and 64 of Janpad Panchayat Majhagawan,
Ward No.4, District Satna in respect of election held on 25.06.2022 for the post
of Member in Janpad Panchayat Majhgawan, District Satna.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed
an application for recounting the votes before the respondent No.4 on
Signature Not Verified
SAN 25.06.2022 (Annexure P/5) in accordance with Rule 77(2) r/w Rule 80(1) of the
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:30 IST Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules of 1995'); but no action whatsoever has been taken by the respondent
No.4 to decide the application. In these circumstances, direction may be issued
to respondent No. 4 to decide the same in accordance with aforesaid provision
at the earliest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in
identical petition bearing W.P.No.15343/2022 seeking similar relief, this Court
has allowed the petition directing the respondents to recount the votes before
declaration of results.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 was granted short time to seek
instructions in the matter telephonically and the matter was again taken up at
4.00 PM. At 4.00 PM, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Commission
submitted that he has been informed by the competent authority in writing vide
letter dated 2.7.2022 that no such application for recounting of votes was ever
received by the authorities, therefore, question of deciding the same does not
arise.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that annexure
P/4 is the result of counting of votes in which name of the present petitioner is
not reflected and the same is also not in the format prescribed under Rule 77(2)
of the Rules of 1995.
In reply, Shri Seth opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that
various disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case as to whether
the results were declared in format or not, application for recounting was
submitted by the petitioner or not are such disputed questions of fact which are
to be decided by recording of evidence, which can only be adjudicated in the
election petition. He further submitted that the present writ petition is not
Signature Not Verified
SAN
maintainable in view of the fact that the election has already been notified on
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:30 IST
27.05.2022 and thereafter results are to be declared on 14.7.2022. In support of
his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in the
case of Laxmibai Vs. Collector, Nanded and others, reported in (2020)12
SCC 186 and S.K.Mahaboob Bee (Smt.) and others Vs. State Election
Commissioner and others, reported in (2000)10 SCC 512 to contend that
the writ petition is not maintainable after the elections have been notified.
However, he fairly stated that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing
election petition after the election is over.
In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law and also looking to the fact
that disputed questions of fact are involved in this case which cannot be
adjudicated in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage.
So far as identical petition bearing W.P.No.15434/2022 is concerned, the
petitioner therein had applied on the very same day and he had the receiving on
the application of the same date. In the instant case, there is no receiving on the
application for recounting so also the fact that in reply learned counsel has
submitted that no such application has been received by the
respondents/authorities. Therefore, no interference is warranted this this stage in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly,
the petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
avail the remedy as available to him under the law at the appropriate time.
Certified copy today.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
Signature Not Verified
SAN JUDGE
HS
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:30 IST
