Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Manakchand on 21 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 9247 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH KUMAR S/O KANWARLAL RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST, ADDRESS: VILLAGE
DHANERIYA KALA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RISHIRAJ TRIVEDI- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. MANAKCHAND S/O LAXMAN JI AHIR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE DHNERIYA
KALA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NEEMUCH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIRANJEEV S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA
NAGDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
DHANERIYA KALA, TEH. DISTRICT
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MADANLAL S/O KASHIRAM AHIR, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O DHANERIYA KALA,
TEH. DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BHARAT S/O MANGILAL JI, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOPI COLONY, VILLAGE DHERIYA
KALA, TEH. AND DIST. NEEMUCH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAJKAMAL S/O RADHESHYAM, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 22-05-2024
11:24:22
2
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O DHANERIYA KALA,
TEH. DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SEEMA W/O ANAND AHIR, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
DHANERIYA KALA, TEH. DISTRICT
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SANSHKAR S/O RAJESH RATHORE, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O DHANERIYA KALA,
TEH. DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. NANDLAL S/O RAMCHANDRA, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O DHANERIYA KALA,
TEH. DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. LAXMINARAYAN S/O HEERALAL AHIR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O DHANERIYA KALA,
TEH. DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. ROSHAN S/O MOHANLAL TELI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O DHANERIYA KALA,
TEH. DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. YASHODA D/O PRAKASH AHIR, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O DHANERIYA KALA,
TEH. DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. PRATHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
RETIRED COLONY, VILLAGE DHANERIYA
KALA, TEH. AND DIST. NEEMUCH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SDO CUM SPECIFIED OFFICER SUB
DIVISION NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 22-05-2024
11:24:22
3
.....RESPONDENTS
Reserved on : 10.04.2024
Pronounced on : 21.05.2024
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.02.2024 passed
by Sub Divisional Officer cum Specified Officer, Sub- Division
Neemuch, respondent No.13, whereby he has dismissed an application
filed by him under Rule 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats
(Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for
Membership) Rules, 1995.
2. The facts in brief are that petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3
were the contestants for the post of Sarpanch for Panchayat Election in
village Dhaneriya Kala, District Neemuch. The petitioner was the
successful candidate. Respondent No.1 thereafter preferred an election
petition before respondent No.13 alleging corrupt practices against the
petitioner and prayed for setting aside of his election. Upon service of
notice upon him the petitioner filed an application under Section 3, 5, 7
and 8 of the Rules, 1995 before respondent No.13 raising objection as
regards maintainability of the election petition for want of compliance of
mandatory provisions of Rules 3 and 7 of the said Rules. The application
was contested by respondent No.1. By the impugned order the application
has been rejected against which this petition has been preferred.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there
has been non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules on part of
respondent No.1. The security deposit was required to be made by him
along with the election petition. The same has however not been done.
The said deposit had already been made on 17.07.2023 whereas the
election petition was presented on 05.09.2023. Such deposit of security
amount cannot be said to be compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. It is
further submitted that the election petition was not presented by
respondent No.1 in person which is also a mandatory requirement
entailing dismissal of the petition at the threshold. Reliance has been
placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of this
Court in Sarla Tripathi vs. Kaushilya Devi and others [2001 MPLJ
Online 1].
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and have perused the record.
5. The provisions as regards election petition under M.P.
Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 are contained in
Section 122 which reads as under:
"122. Election petition - (1) An election [x x x] under
this Act shall be called in question only by a petition
presented in the prescribed manner :-(i) in case of
[Panchayat or Gram Sabha] to the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue);
(ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and
(iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional
Commissioner and not otherwise.
(2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is
presented within thirty days from the date on which the
election [x x x] in question was notified. (3) Such
petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according
to such procedures as may be prescribed."
6. The relevant Rules of Rules, 1995 for the purpose of this
petition are Rules, 3, 7 and 8 which are as under:
"3. Presentation of election petition -(l) All election
Petition shall be presented. to the specified Officer during
the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a
person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person
making the petition.
(2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many
copies. thereof as there are respondents mentioned. in the
petition and every such copy shall be attested by the
petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the
petition.
7. Deposit of security -At the time of presentation of an
election petition; the petitioner shall deposit with the specifid
officer a sum of Rs. five Hundred as security. Where the
election of more than one candidate is called in question, a
separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in
respect of each such returned candidates.
8. Procedure on receiving petition - If the provisions of
rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the
petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers :
Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this
rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being
heard."
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since
deposit of the security amount was not made by respondent No.1 along
with the election petition hence it deserves dismissal has to be considered
in view of language of Rule 7 and by giving it a meaningful interpretation
in view of the decisions of this Court as summarized in the case of Sarla
(supra).
8. The principle as has been laid down in the case of Sarla (supra)
is that the security deposit has to be made at the time of presentation of
the election petition and there is no option to deposit the said amount on a
later day. Any deposit made after the date of presentation of election
petition, even though the same may be within the prescribed period of
limitation for preferring the election petition, would not be due
compliance.
9. However, neither in the Rules nor in any judgment has any
prohibition been made that such deposit of security amount cannot be
made prior to the presentation of the election petition. The mandatory
requirement is that the election Tribunal would have jurisdiction to
entertain an election petition only when on the date of its presentation the
security amount has been deposited. The expression 'at the time of
presentation of the election petition' has hence necessarily to be construed
as either at the time of presentation or at any time prior to it. What is
mandated is the deposit having been made when the election petition is
presented. To hold that the security deposit has to be made only along
with the presentation of election petition and cannot be made prior to
such presentation would be violative of true import and spirit of Rule 7.
10. The order sheet dated 05.09.2023 of the Sub Divisional Officer
records that the election petition was presented by respondent No.1. Since
there is a categoric recording to that effect it cannot be said at this stage
that there has been any violation on part of respondent No.1 in the matter
of personal presentation of the petition. Merely because respondent No.13
did not obtain signatures of respondent No.1 in the order sheet it cannot
be assumed that the election petition was not personally presented by
him. Nowhere in the Rules has it been provided that along with
presentation of the election petition, the election petitioner would also
have to sign upon the order sheet or anywhere else in the record for the
purpose of proving his personal presence and presentation of the election
petition by him. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the election petition was not personally presented by respondent No.1
cannot be accepted.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
error having been committed by respondent No.13 in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner. The petition being devoid of merits is
hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
