Ravichand Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9286 MP

                                                                   1
                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                           ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022

                                                     WRIT PETITION No. 15050 of 2022

                                           Between:-
                                           RAVICHAND PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI SHANKAR
                                           PRASAD PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                                           OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O VILLAGE + P.O.
                                           KARSUALAL, TEHSIL MADHA, DISTRICT
                                           SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                                           (BY SHRI DILEEP PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

                                           AND

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

                                   2.      THE    COLLECTOR/DISTRICT    RETURNING
                                           OFFICER, SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   3.      THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
                                           SUB-DIVISION WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   4.      THE RETURNING OFFICER, BLOCK WAIDHAN,
                                           DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   5.      ANJANI PRASAD PRAJAPATI, OCCUPATION :
                                           FARMER, R/O VILLAGE + P.O. KARSUALAL,
                                           TEHSIL  MADHA,   DISTRICT   SINGRAULI
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                                           (SHRI SIDDHARTH SETH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2
                                           AND 4)
Signature Not Verified
  SAN

                                         This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.12 10:44:45 IST

                                   following:
                                                                         2
                                                                         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.43, 44 and 45 in respect of election held on 25.06.2022 for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karsualal, Zila Panchayat Singrouli, District Singrouli.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed an application for recounting the votes before the respondent No.2 and 3 on the same day, i.e. on 25.06.2022 (Annexures P/2 to 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.3 to decide the application. In these circumstances, direction may be issued to respondent No.3 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.

P er contra, Shri Seth opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that various disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case viz. there is no receiving on the application for recounting submitted by the petitioner, which are to be adjudicated by recording of evidence, which can only be done in the election petition. He 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 Signature Not Verified

his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in the SAN

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.12 10:44:45 IST 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 at 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) JUDGE HS

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.12 10:44:45 IST