Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Laxmi vs State Election Commission on 22 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23239
1 WP-25376-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 25376 of 2023
VIJAY LAXMI
Versus
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vibhore Khandelwal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava - Govt. Advocate for the State.
None for respondent No.6 though served.
ORDER
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the final
order dated 12.05.2023 [Annexure P/3] passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain
Division, Ujjain, the Election Tribunal, in an Election Petition preferred under
Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.
02. The main contention which has been raised by the counsel for
the petitioner is that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 11 of the
M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification
for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for brevity Rules of 1995) has not been followed
as no issues have been framed so also parties have not been allowed to
adduce their evidences and only on the basis of reply which has been filed, the
final order has been passed. Rule 11 of Rules, 1995 which prescribes a
certain procedure has not been followed, which lays down as under:
"11. Procedure before the specified officer and his powers. - (1) Subject to the
provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the
specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23239
2 WP-25376-2023
applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits
:Provided that it shall have only be necessary for the specified officer to make
a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by
him.
(2) The specified officer, shall have the powers which are vested in a 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 witnesses, 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 motu any person whose evidence, appears to him to
be material".
03. In the light of the aforesaid, it is submitted by the counsel for the
petitioner that election petition shall be tried as a suit as per provisions contained
in the Code of Civil Procedure and the same are required to be mandatorily
followed. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the cases of Vadivelu
v. Sundaram and Ors., reported in 2000 (8) SCC 355, Ram Niwas vs. Pooran and
Ors, reported in 2001 (II) MPJR 198, Pooran vs. The Election Officer and Ors,
reported in 2001 (II) MPJR 190 and Rameshchandra Bhilala vs. Bashir and Ors.,
reported in 2011 (1) MPHT 35.
04. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/State while supporting
the impugned order argued that from the order impugned, it is reflected that it was
passed only after affording equal opportunity to the parties and only because the
procedure as prescribed under Section 11 of Rules, 1995 has not been followed,
the entire order cannot be said to be vitiated, however, he candidly admits that in
the light of the judgments cited by the petitioner, the only course left would be
to relegate the parties to the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain to hear the
election petition afresh in accordance with Rule 11 of Rules, 1995.
05. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23239
3 WP-25376-2023
the record, it appears that the procedure as laid down under Rule 11 of Rules,
1995 has not been followed as no issues have been framed and the parties have not
been allowed to adduce their evidences. Thus, the entire proceedings
stands vitiated. The procedure as laid down under the provisions of the CPC
for trying the suit is to be followed in cases where election petitions are tried
under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.
06. In the light of the above discussion and in the light of the
above judgments, this Court deems it fit to relegate the parties to the
Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain for adjudicating the election petition afresh
after framing of the issues and allowing the parties to adduce their evidences.
Accordingly, the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain
Division, Ujjain in Election Petition is hereby set aside.
07. Let the entire exercise be done within a period of three months from the
first date of appearance of the parties.
08. It is needless to mention that the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain
shall proceed from the stage of framing of issues on the basis of the pleadings
which have been made by the parties in the election petition as well as in the
reply.
09. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands
disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
