Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs Sulabh Kumar Dwivedi on 6 February, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2407 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA S/O BHOLANATH
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ELECTED SARPANCH R/O VILLAGE BADHAIYA, P.O.
BACHHARHATA, POLICE STATION SHAHPUR, TEHSIL
HANUMANA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SATYA PRAKASH MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SULABH KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O SHRI NIWAS
DWIVEDI OCCUPATION: SARPANCH CANDIDATE
R/O VILLAGE KOTHAR, P.O. BICHHARHATA,
POLICE STATION SHAHPUR, TEHSIL HANUMANA,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHESH PRASAD TIWARI S/O LATE
SWAMISHARAN TIWARI OCCUPATION:
SARPANCH CANDIDATE, GRAM PANCHAYAT
BADHAIYA R/O VILLAGE BADHAIYA,
P.O.BICHHARHATA, POLICE STATION SHAHPUR,
TEHSIL HANUMANA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NAGENDRA PRASAD S/O SHRI LALTA PRASAD
MISHRA OCCUPATION: SARPANCH CANDIDATE
GRAM PANCHAYAT BADHAIYA R/O VILLAGE
BADHAIYA, P.O.BICHHARHATA, POLICE STATION
SHAHPUR, TEHSIL HANUMANA DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O SHRI UMASHANKAR
MISHRA OCCUPATION: SARPANCH CANDIDATE
GRAM PANCHAYAT BADHAIYA R/O VILLAGE
BADHAIYA, P.O.BICHHARHATA, POLICE STATION
SHAHPUR, TEHSIL HANUMANA DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/8/2023
10:38:10 AM
2
5. RAMESH KUMAR S/O SHRI RAMSUKHAD PANDEY
OCCUPATION: SARPANCH CANDIDATE, GRAM
PANCHAYAT BADHAIYA R/O VILLAGE
PARDHANIYA/KOTHAR/P.O. BICHHARHATA,
POLICE STATION SHAHPUR, TEHSIL HANUMANA,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI RAJESH SINGH
OCCUPATION: SARPANCH CANDIDATE GRAM
PANCHAYAT BADHAIYA R/O VILLAGE BADHAIYA,
P.O.BICHHARHATA, POLICE STATION SHAHPUR,
TEHSIL HANUMANA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. RAMJI S/O SHRI MAHESHWARI PRASAD
OCCUPATION: SARPANCH CANDIDATE, GRAM
PANCHAYAT BADHAIYA R/O VILLAGE BADHAIYA,
P.O.BICHHARHATA, POLICE STATION SHAHPUR,
TEHSIL HANUMANA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. SITARAM SAKET, PRESIDING OFFICER OF
POLLING BOOTH NO.55 POORV MADHYA
BICHHARHATA, VILLAGE KOTHAR, TEHSIL
HANUMAN, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ PRESCRIBED
O F F I C E R / RETURNING OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT HANUMANA, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
assailing the order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure-P/4) passed by respondent
No.9-Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Officer/Returning Officer, Tahsil
Hanumana, District Rewa in Yachika Prakaran No.0001/2022-23.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present petitioner
is an elected Sarpanch and election of the Sarpanch/petitioner has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/8/2023
10:38:10 AM
disputed by respondent/election petitioner by filing an election petition in terms
of Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993.
The petitioner herein upon receipt of notice entered appearance and also moved
an objection regarding maintainability of the election petition. The said objection
submitted by the present petitioner has been turned down vide impugned order
dated 12.01.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the election petition
filed by the election petitioner does not contain material particulars and
therefore, this main ground of assail should be taken into consideration. It is
further contended by the counsel that an objection was preferred before the
Election Tribunal on different grounds which have been elaborated in Annexure-
P/3, but the same objection has been turned down in a purely mechanical
manner without appreciating the provisions of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan
Niyam, 1995.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
decisions passed by this Court in the case of Rani Maraskole Vs. State of
M.P. reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ 457, Ganesh Ram Gayari Vs. Bagdiram
& Ors. reported in ILR 2013 (MP) 1793 and also a decision of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.15383/2016 (Devki Nanan
Dubey Vs. Purshottam Sahu).
5. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner,
undisputedly, the petitioner's election as Sarpanch has been disputed by the
election petitioner by filing election petition in terms of Section 122 of the M.P.
Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. The petitioner's objection
was taken note of by the Election Tribunal and the Election Tribunal has
rejected the same. To deal with the contentions so advanced into present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/8/2023
10:38:10 AM
petition found, it is apposite to deal with the objection submitted by the present
petitioner.
6. A perusal of the objection which was submitted by the present
petitioner before the Election Tribunal reflects that the objection was moved
precisely on three grounds; firstly the Election Petition was not preferred within
a period of 30 days in terms of the statutory provisions, secondly the security in
terms of Rule 7 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 was not deposited
and thirdly the Presiding Officer was not impleaded as one of the respondents
in the Election Petition. No other objection was raised by the petitioner and the
aforesaid three objections were dealt with by the Election Tribunal which is
evident from paragraph 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Election
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the election petition was filed within the
stipulated period of 30 days; the security deposit was also made in terms of
Rule 7 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and the election petitioner
also impleaded the Presiding Officer as one of the respondents and the
remaining candidates were also impleaded in the Election Petition.
7. A bare perusal of the objection raised by the petitioner herein reflects
that there was no objection as regards the non-mentioning of material particulars
in election petition. The judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable inasmuch as, in all the decisions,
after passing of the final order by the Election Tribunal, the maintainability of
the election petition was questioned. Whereas, in present case, the objection
raised by the present petitioner which is contained in Annexure-P/3, does not
reflect that any objection on the ground of non-mentioning of material
particulars was taken recourse to by the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/8/2023
10:38:10 AM
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this
stage and accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
9. This order shall not come in way of the petitioner to take recourse to
the grounds of material particulars at appropriate stage after decision of the
election petition.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
@shish
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/8/2023
10:38:10 AM
