Madhya Pradesh High Court
Digvijay Jichkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 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 11th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 15633 of 2022
Between:-
DIGVIJAY JICHKAR S/O SHRI KAMLAKAR
JICHKAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM
TINKHEDA, TAH. SAUNSAR DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIVEK SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER, M.P. STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, CHHINDWARA,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RETURNING OFFICER, JANPAD PANCHAYAT,
SAUNSAR DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(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 respondents No.2 and 3 for recounting of
Signature Not Verified
SAN votes of polling booth nos.139, 140, 141, 142 and 143 in respect of elections
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.12 19:18:14 IST held on 1.7.2022 for the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat Saunsar, District
Chhindwara.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed
a n application for recounting the votes before the respondent No.3 on
4.07.2022 (Annexure P/2) 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.
Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 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
announced by the Returning Officer on the very same day failing which the
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 4.7.2022, as is
evident from annexure P/2. 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 Commission further submitted that
the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the election
Signature Not Verified
SAN
has already been notified on 27.05.2022 and thereafter results are to be declared
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.12 19:18:14 IST
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, her 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.15343/2022 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, the application for
recounting of votes has been given after three days from the counting of votes,
i.e. on 4.7.2022, which is evident from annexure P/2, therefore, no interference
is warranted at this stage in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition s tand s 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: 2022.07.12 19:18:14 IST
