Madhya Pradesh High Court
Basanti Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 WP-25243-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 25243 of 2024
(BASANTI BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 02-09-2024
Shri Durgesh Kumar Singore - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Shri Rajneesh Kumar - Advocate for respondent No.5 on Caveat.
Heard on the question of interim relief.
2. By referring to the election petition filed by respondent No.5, it is
submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondent No.5 had merely prayed
that the petition may be accepted. No relief as required under Rule 6 of
Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and
Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short 'Rules, 1995') was
prayed.
3. By relying upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
Dharmin Bai Kashyap Vs. Babli Sahu & Others decided on 16/08/2023 in
Civil Appeal No.2517/2023 , it is submitted by Shri Singore that if the
election petitioner fails to seek relief of declaration as required under Rule 6
of Rules, 1995, then the election petition for seeking relief of recounting of
votes is not maintainable and accordingly, it is prayed that since recounting is
to take place on 04/09/2024, therefore the impugned order dated 12/08/2024
passed by Competent Authority/ SDO (Revenue), Niwas, District Mandla in
case No.96/B-121/2022-23 be stayed.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No.5 that the
2 WP-25243-2024
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan
Samadkhan Sindhi and Others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 234 has held that
even if any prayer is not made, the same can be granted. It is further
submitted that the order of recounting is an interlocutory order, therefore, the
petition is not maintainable. To buttress his contentions, counsel for
respondent No.5 has relied upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Gab Singh Vs. Jorawar Singh reported in 2004
(1) M.P.W.N. 176 (Decision reproduced in toto).
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
6. So far as the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Bharat
Amratlal Kothari (supra) is concerned, the law laid down in the said case
would not apply to the present case because in the said case, the question as
to whether compensation can be granted to the appellant in absence of prayer
or not was taken into consideration. The aforesaid case had arisen out of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and other provisions of Cr.P.C.
So far as the present case is concerned, it has arisen out of the Election Laws.
The Supreme Court in the case of Dharmin Bai Kashyap (supra) has held that
the election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but it is a
statutory proceeding requiring strict construction of provisions.
7. So far as the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Gab Singh (supra) is concerned, the same would not apply
because in the present case the petitioner had not sought for her declaration
as an elected candidate and had merely stated that the election petition be
allowed.
3 WP-25243-2024
8. Since an arguable ground has been raised by counsel for petitioner,
therefore, it is directed that the order dated 12/08/2024 passed by Competent
Authority/ SDO (Revenue) Niwas, District Mandla in case No.96/B-
121/2022-23 shall remain stayed till further orders.
9. List in first week of October, 2024 for final hearing at motion stage.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Arun*
