Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeetu Sour 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. 15606 of 2022
Between:-
JEETU SOUR S/O SHRI RAMLAL SOUR , AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE TODI TEHSIL
PRITHAVIPUR DISTRICT NIWADI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ELECTION
COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETORY
BHOPAL M.P. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NIRVACHAN BHAVAN 58 ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER NIWADI
DISTRICT NIWADI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (PANCHAYAT) GARM
PANCHAYAT TODI JANPAD PANCHAYAT
PRITHVIPUR DISTRICT NIWADI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER (PANCHAYAT)
THROUGH PRESCRIBED OFFICER PRITHVIPUR
POLLING BOOTH NO. 74 FOR GRAM
PANCHAYAT TODI JANPAD PANCHAYAT
PRITHVIPUR DISTRICT NIWADI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DHANIRAM SOUR S/O SHRI NATHURAM SOUR ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TODI
TEHSIL PRITHAVIPUR DISTRICT NIWADI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
.....RESPONDENTS
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:31 IST
(RESPONDENTS/STATE BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO -
2
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 4 BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SETH -
ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing, this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner seeks quashment of order, annexure P/3 and further seeking a
direction to respondents No.1, 2 and 4 for recounting of votes of Polling Booth
No.74 in respect of elections held on 1.7.2022 for the post of Sarpanch of
Gram Panchayat Todi, Janpad Panchayat Prithvipur, District Niwari.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed
a n application for recounting the votes before the respondent No.4 on
05.07.2022 (Annexure P/4) in accordance with Rule 77(2) r/w Rule 80(1) of the
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 respondents no.1, 2 and 4 opposed the prayer
and submitted that as per rule 80(1) of the Rules of 1995, the application for
recounting of votes can only be accepted as soon as the results have been
Signature Not Verified
SAN announced by the Returning Officer on the very same day failing which the
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:31 IST
respondents/authorities are not obliged to take into consideration the application
at a later stage. In the instant case, the elections were held on 1.7.2022 and the
petitioner has filed the application for recounting of votes on 5.7.2022, as is
evident from annexure P/4. Moreover, the petitioner has submitted the
application to the Commissioner, M.P. State Election Commission, Bhopal,
who is not the competent authority to decide the application for recounting of
votes. Moreover, the said authority has not been made a party to the petition.
In such circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition
deserves no interference and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 and 4 further submitted that
the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the election
has already been notified on 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 the petitioner has not filed the application immediately after announcement
of result has been made, his case for recounting of votes cannot be considered
and, therefore, 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
petitioner therein had applied on the very same day and he had the receiving on
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:31 IST
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 at this stage in
exercise of powers conferred 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)
JUDGE
HS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.09 18:39:31 IST
