Rukshsana Bi vs Smt. Tara Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 11734 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                              ON THE 26 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 433 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RUKSHSANA BI W/O ABID KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD VILLAGE
                           BISAHEDA, TEHSIL BADNAGAR DISTRICT UJJAIN
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI BALDEEP SINGH GANDHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           1.    SMT. TARA BAI W/O BHOLARAM CHUOHAN,
                                 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
                                 HOLD VILLAGE BISAHEDA, TEHSIL BADNAGAR
                                 DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. SHYAMU BAI W/O GOPAL DABI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD
                                 VILLAGE    BISAHEDA,  TEHSIL  BADNAGAR,
                                 DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    RETURNING OFFICER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER
                                 POLLING BOOTH NO.125, BADNAGAR, DISTRICT
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    RETURNING OFFICER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER
                                 POLLING BOOTH NO.126, BADNAGAR, DISTRICT
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BADNAGAR, DISTRICT
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI RISHIRAJ TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
                           NO.1)
                           (SHRI SUDARSHAN JOSHI, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
                           NO.3)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 28-07-2023
13:19:04
                                                                2
                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

(1) The Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2022 whereby Election Petition has been dismissed without framing any issue and recording evidence.

(2) Petitioner has challenged the Election of Respondent No.1 by way of filing an Election Petition. The procedure to decide the election petition is provided in the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practice and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995 framed under The Madhya Pradesh Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

(3) Rule 11 of Election Rules says that every election petition shall be enquired in to by the specified officer as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in C.P.C. to the trial of the suit. Hence for deciding the Election Petition issues are liable to be framed and thereafter opportunity to lead the evidence to the parties should be given. The Specified Officer should decide the Election Petition like Civil Suit. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court has held that Election Petition cannot be dismissed summarily without framing the issue and without recording the evidence. The Election Petition has been dismissed summarily on the ground that the petitioner did not submit any application before the Returning Officer for recounting hence the dismissal of the Election Petition on this ground is unsustainable.

(4) Shri Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submits that there is a non-compliance of mandatory provision of the Rules 1995 for which the respondent no.1 had no occasion to raise these objections because the election petition itself has been dismissed on merit, therefore, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2023 13:19:04

liberty be granted to raise objections.

(5) In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 is hereby set aside. The Election Petition is remanded back to the specified officer to decide in accordance with the law as observed herein above and restored to its original number. Respondent no.1 is free to raise all objections.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE VS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2023 13:19:04