Kamlabai vs Rajendra Signh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20811 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kamlabai vs Rajendra Signh on 8 December, 2023

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       WA No. 2165 of 2023
                                                 (KAMLABAI Vs RAJENDRA SIGNH AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 08-12-2023
                                 Shri Rishiraj Trivedi - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Shri Tarun Pagare - Government Advocate for respondent No.4.

The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The appellant is a Returned candidate of Panchayat election in question. The

respondent filed an election petition under Section 122 read with Rule 3 and Rule 7 of M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as "Rules 1995"), challenging the election of the appellant. The appellant raised objections regarding non-compliance of provisions of Rule 3 and 7 of Rules, 1995 under Rule 8 that the election petition has not been presented as per provisions of Rule 3 of Rules, 1995.

02. The petition was filed by an Advocate who was not especially authorized for presentation of election petition. The Vakalatnama was filed by

him after presentation of election petition. There was no specific authorization to present the election petition in favour of Advocate.

03. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has taken erroneous view that the petition has to be treated to be duly presented as per Rule 3 because the order-sheet is not signed either by Advocate or by election petitioner and therefore it has to be presumed that the election petition was presented as per Rule 3 of Rules, 1995 by petitioner in person. It is further argued that the order is contrary to the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Tara Vs.

Dabla 2002 (3) MPLJ 591, Rani Agrawal Vs. Ajay Kumar Pathak, AIR 2017 MP 130 and Sarla Tripathi Vs. Kaushilya Devi 2001 MPLJ Online 1 and also contrary to the record of specified officer which reflects that the election petition was presented by an Advocate. There was no specific authorization to present the election petition. The Vakalatnama cannot be treated to be as specific authorization for presenting the election petition.

04. After hearing, learned counsel for the appellant we find that prima facie case is made out.

05. Notice be issued to the respondent, therefore, issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee by RAD within seven working days

with due acknowledgment, returnable within four weeks failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the petition, the proceedings of election petition bearing Case No.36/B-121/2022- 2023 pending before the specified officer was stayed.

07. Considering the same as an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, subject to hearing other side further proceedings of the said case pending before the specific officer shall remain stayed.

                              (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)                                       (PRANAY VERMA)
                                      JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

                           Shilpa