Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Laxmi Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9116
1 WP-6058-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6058 of 2023
SMT. LAXMI CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Singh - Advocate for the respondent [R-4].
Mr. Shrikk Prajapati -Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is preferred
against the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in Election petition No.
0011/89(21)/2022-23 by the Sub Divisional Officer/Specified Officer,
whereby, Election petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 122 of
M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was dismissed
without allowing the parties to lead the evidence in pursuance to the issues
framed therein which in wake of election petition Rule 11 of the M.P.
Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for
Membership) Rules, 1955 (herein after referred to as "The Rules, 1955"),
which provides that the Election petition shall be enquired into by the
SDO/Specified Officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the
procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9116
2 WP-6058-2023
suits, was bad in law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order
arguing that Sub Divisional Officer/Specified Officer had not followed the
rules prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1955 as he was required to
provide opportunity to the parties to the Election petition to lead evidence
and examine the witnesses in support of material placed before him, but no
such opportunity was granted to either of the parties and the Election petition
was dismissed on merits which is per se illegal. On the basis of the aforesaid
arguments it was submitted that present petition be allowed and the matter be
remitted back to the SDO/Specified Officer/Election Tribunal for conducting
the proceedings afresh. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance
upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case Sohan Lal Vs.
Babu Gandhi and Ors., (2003) 2 M.P.L.J 215, Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Manas
Bhunia, 2001 Legal Egal (SC) 3 Equivalent: 2001 (2) SCC 652, Kalka
Prasad Vs. Ramjilal and Ors., 2002(3) M.P.L.J. 121, Lalamdas Vs.
Vidyawatim and others, 2007 M.P.L.J 410 and Omkar Mahule Vs. State of
M.P. and Others; 2017(2) MPLJ 715.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed
the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that no illegality has been
committed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Specified Officer/Election Tribunal
in dismissing the election petition on merits as no case as pleaded was made
out, thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Rule 11 of Rules, 1955 prescribes the procedure before Specified
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9116
3 WP-6058-2023
Officer and its powers for hearing the election petition and aforesaid rule
makes provision that every election petition shall be enquired into by the
Specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure
applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of the suits.
Sub Rule 2 of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1955 provides that the Specified Officer,
shall have the power which are vested in the Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:-
"a) Discovery and inspection;
b) enforcing the attendance of winess, and requiring the deposit of
their expenses;
c) compelling the production of document;
d) examination of witnesses on oath;
e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit and;
f) issuing commission for examination of witnesses and summoning
and examining suo moto any person whose any person whose evidence,
appears to him to be material."
6. From bare perusal of Rule 11, it is clear that it is not a substantive
provision rather it is procedural, which empowers the Specified Officer to try
the election petition as may be possible in accordance with the procedure of
the trial of the suit. Sub Rule (2) confers the procedural powers to the
Election Tribunal for trial of election petition. Under the scheme of the
Rules, of 1955, the Election Tribunal is under obligation to decide election
petition on merits after examining the grounds mentioned in the election
petition after framing issues, recording evidence and affording opportunity to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9116
4 WP-6058-2023
the parties to the election petition and it a sacrosanct duty is casted up on the
Election Tribunal and Courts to try and adjudicate election petitions like a
trial of a suit.
7. In the present case, the Election Tribunal after framing of issues had
directed the parties to submit their arguments without giving them
opportunity for leading evidence in support of their claims. Thus, it can be
said that in a very cryptive and cavalier manner, election petition was heard
and later on decided which is not the mandate of provisions of law as
discussed above. In number of the cases, it has been held that Elections
Petitions has to be tried as far as possible like a trial of the Civil Suit, the
court has to frame issues, record evidence and after affording opportunity of
hearing to the parties had to adjudicate the election petition, but in the
present case no opportunity of leading the evidence was provided to the
petitioner or to the extent to the other side.
8. Thus, in light of aforesaid discussion, since it is revealed that the
election petition has been dismissed in total derogation of rule 11 of Rules,
1955, the said order being not sustainable is hereby set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the SDO/Specified Officer/Election Tribunal to decide the
election petition afresh in accordance with law.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
