Smt. Poonam Singh vs The State Election Commission
2022 Latest Caselaw 9292 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. 15648 of 2022

                                           Between:-
                                           SMT. POONAM SINGH W/O SHRI NARENDRA
                                           SINGH , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                           HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE PATHRAHA GRAM
                                           PANCHAYAT PATHRAHA JANPAD PANCHAYAT
                                           RAIPURKARCHULIYAN TAHSIL MANGAWAN
                                           DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                           (BY SHRI RAKESH DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)

                                           AND

                                   1.      THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH
                                           ITS COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN BHAWAN
                                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.      THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER REWA
                                           DISTRICT REWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   3.      THE PRESIDING OFFICER ELECTION BOOTH
                                           NO.   157  AND   158 GRAM   PANCHAYAT
                                           PATHRAHA       JANPAD      PANCHAYAT
                                           RAIPURKARCHULIYAN DISTRICT REWA M.P.
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   4.      THE    RETURNING     OFFICER (PANCHAYAT)
                                           JANPAD PANCHAYAT RAIPURKARCHULIYAN
                                           DISTRICT REWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                                           (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SETH - ADVOCATE)

                                         This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                   following:
Signature Not Verified
  SAN
                                                                      ORDER

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.12 10:44:46 IST In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents No.2 for recounting of votes of Polling Booth No.157 and 158 in respect of elections held on 1.7.2022 for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pathraha, Janpad Panchayat Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a n application for recounting the votes before the respondent No.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.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and P er contra, Shri Seth opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that various disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case viz. firstly an undated application has been filed by the petitioner, secondly, 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 SAN

his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in the Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.12 10:44:46 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 10:44:46 IST