Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sapna Devi vs Smt. Rachna on 16 June, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1871 of 2024
SMT. SAPNA DEVI
Vs.
SMT. RACHNA AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri S.D. Singh and
Dharmendra Dwivedi - Advocates for the appellant.
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri S.K.
Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General for
respondent No.2/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
{Delivered on 16th the day of June, 2025}
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005 is preferred by the appellant being crestfallen by the order
dated 23-04-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.6756 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
(as petitioner in writ petition) got dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner as well as
respondents No.1 and 3 contested the elections for the post of
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Virgawan Rani, Janpad Panchayat Ater
District Bhind held on 01-07-2022. Result of the election was
declared on 14-07-2022 whereby petitioner was declared as a
returned candidate.
3. It appears that respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the election of
petitioner filed the election petition seeking recounting of the votes
in the polling booth 218, 219, 220 and 221. Said election petition
was contested by the present petitioner on the ground of non
compliance of rules, 3,4 and 7 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election
Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership)
Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1995").
4. It appears that election petition was admitted by the Presiding
Officer vide order dated 20-09-2022 and notices were issued
without deciding the application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC
filed by respondent No.1, earlier, nor objections filed by the
petitioner were taken into consideration with respect to the inherent
defects in the election petition. During pendency of election
petition, application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC filed by
respondent No.1 was allowed by the Specified Officer/SDO vide
order dated 06-10-2022 and respondent No.3 was directed to be
made party in the election petition.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 20-09-2022, petitioner filed one
Miscellaneous Petition No.4610/2022 before learned Single Bench
and vide order dated 06-12-2022 said petition was disposed of with
a direction to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before Specified
Officer. Thereafter, petitioner preferred another application under
Section 151 of CPC along with detailed objections on 23-12-2022
but said objections were dismissed vide order dated 28-12-2022
and matter was directed to be listed on 30-12-2022 for final
hearing.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 28-12-2022, petitioner again
preferred one miscellaneous petition No.6462/2022 before learned
Single Bench which was dismissed vide order dated 20-02-2023.
Allegations of alleged non compliance of rule 4 of the Rules of
1995 at the instance of petitioner, were rejected.
7. Thereafter, petitioner sought time to file reply but denied by the
prescribed officer enabling petitioner to file miscellaneous petition
No.243/2023 which was allowed vide order dated 20-02-2023 and
Specified Officer was directed to allow the petitioner to file reply
and contest the election petition. Thereafter, final order was passed
on 15-03-2023 and election of present petitioner was set aside and
recounting of the votes was ordered. Pursuant to which, recounting
was done on 24-03-2023. Meanwhile, petitioner preferred the
present writ petition (W.P.No.6756/2023) on 20-03-2023 and
interim order was passed on 24-03-2023. Meanwhile result was
declared because interim order could reach Specified Officer bit
belatedly. By the said recounting, respondent No.1 was declared
elected by one vote. Thereafter, present petition was dismissed by
learned Writ Court, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that non
compliance of rules 3,4 and 7 of Rules of 1995 is apparent and
writ large. Specified Officer erred in ignoring the said aspect and
caused illegality. According to him, objections filed by the present
petitioner were not considered in correct perspective by the SDO
and caused illegality. There was no occasion for recounting to be
done. He relied upon the judgments in the case of Tara Vs. Dabla
alias Lalita & Other, 2002 (3) MPLJ 591, Urmila Devi Vs.
Returning Officer (Panchayat) & Others, 2008 (4) MPHT 410,
Ganesh Ram Gayari Vs. Bagdiram & others, (2013) 2 MPLJ 447
and Smt. Anita vs Sakhi & Others, (2016) 3 MPLJ 437.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that
compliance was duly made by respondent No.1 while filing the
election petition. Said election petition was presented before the
Specified Officer by an authorized person/duly appointed Advocate
by way of Vakalatnama. Therefore, compliance was made because
the said Advocate was authorized by the election petitioner
(respondent No.1 herein) to submit election petition. All copies
were duly given but since petitioner refused to accept the notice,
therefore, impliedly notice was accepted and he did not raise any
objection during pendency of election petition when appeared
many a times.
10. Later on, the objection is raised that too after election petition
being admitted by the Presiding Officer, thus it has no validity.
Respondent No.1 challenged the election of petitioner and
therefore, other candidates were not required to be impleaded as
party respondents. Therefore, no illegality has been caused.
11. It is further submitted that the security amount has been deposited
within one month of filing of election petition because election
petition was filed on 21-07-2022 whereas security amount was
deposited on 08-08-2022, that is within thirty days. Thus, defect
was made good and a sum of Rs.500/- as security was deposited
through challan. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Ravi Thakur Vs. Shivshankar Patel and others, AIR
1997 MP 136.
12. Another point raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that
after order of recounting, process of recounting was done and
respondent No.1 stood elected as Sarpanch on 24-03-2023
declaring returned candidate by one vote. Therefore, substantial
compliance has been made and substantial justice has been done
because respondent No.1 who deserves to be elected got elected
ultimately. Thus, no case for interference is made out. He relied
upon the judgments of Apex Court as well as this Court in the case
of Satyadhan Ghosal and others Vs. Devranjan Devi, AIR 1960
SC 941, Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. M.
Prabhakar and others, (2011) 5 SCC 607, Shiv Chander More Vs.
Lieutenant Governor and others, (2014) 11 SCC 744,
Superintending Engineer (O&M) P.P.K.V.V.C. Vs. National Steel
and Agro Industries Limited and others, 2020 (3) MPLJ 211,
Inderjit Singh Sodhi Vs. Chairman, Punjab State Electricity
Board and others, (2021) 1 SCC 198, Ramavtar Budhouwa Vs.
Smt. Susheela Singh and others, 2007 (1) JLJ 54 (Para 24),
Ramrati Vs. Sub Divisional Officer Sidhi and others, 2005 (3) JLJ
48 (Para 9 & 10), Gadde Venkateshwara Rao Vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828, Mohd. Swalleh
and others Vs. Third Additional District Judge Merrut and
others, AIR 1988 SC 94, Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath
Shahdeo Vs. State of Bihar and others, (1999) 8 SCC 16 and
Roshan Deen Vs. Preetilal, (2002) 1 SCC 100.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
14. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to the order of
recounting of votes whereby SDO conducted recounting of votes
and declared respondent No.1 as returned candidate. Pleadings and
submissions of election petitioner (respondent No.1) indicates that
the elections result were declared on 14-07-2012 and election
petition was filed on 21-07-2022. The security deposit has been
made on 08-08-2022, therefore, it was filed within one month of
result of election as well as one month of filing election petition.
Similarly, only necessary party was impleaded as party and since
respondent No.1 sought election of present petitioner to be
declared as void, therefore, she has been impleaded as party
respondent in the election petition. Therefore, compliance of rule 4
of the Rules of 1995 was made.
15. Since election petition was presented by a duly engaged Advocate,
therefore, authority found the election petition to be properly
presented as per rule 3 of the Rules of 1995. All copies were found
to be duly attested by the election petitioner. The order dated 20-
09-2022 is placed for ready reference:
"प्रकरण गग्राहहितग्रा कके बबिनन न पर आनकेशग्रारर्थ प्रसतनत
प्रकरण कके सग्रार ससंलगग्न वररषष्ठ ननग्रानग्रालन ककी ररोललग/नसतग्रावकेज एवसं
पतग्रावलली कग्रा गहिग्न अधननग्न ककनग्रा ववदवग्राग्न अलभिवकतग्रा कके तकर्को पर
मग्नग्न ककनग्रा।
- नग्नवग्रार्थचग्न अजर्जी म 0 प्र 0 पसंचग्रानत रग्राज अधधिनग्ननम 1993 नग्ननम 1995 कके
तहित गग्राम पसंचग्रानत ववरगसंवग्रा रग्राग्ननी कके सरपसंच पन कके नग्नवग्रार्थचग्न कके
ववरूदधि प्रसतत
न ककी गई हिहै।
-म 0 प्र 0 बत - सतरलीन नग्नवग्रार्थचग्न 2022 ककी पररणग्राम ककी घरोषणग्रा हनग्नग्रासंक
14/07/2022 करो ककी गननी हिहै, नग्नवग्रार्थचग्न अजर्जी अजर्जीनग्रार रचग्नग्रा पतग्ननी महिकेश
कनमग्रार अधधिककत अधधिवकतग्रा दवग्रारग्रा अननर अवधधि 30 हनवस मम हनग्नग्रासंक
21/07/2022 करो प्रसतनत ककी गननी हिहै।
- नग्नवग्रार्थचग्न अजर्जी मम हहितबिदधि वनककत करो पक्षकग्रार बिग्नग्रानग्रा गनग्रा हिहै,
कजतग्नके पक्षकग्रार बिग्नग्रानके गनके हिहै, उतग्ननी सतनग्रावपत प्रनतनग्रासं अजर्जी ककी
अनतररकत प्रसतनत ककी गननी हिहै, अजर्जीनग्रार दवग्रारग्रा प्रनतभिभनत रग्रालश 500/-
रूपनके चग्रालग्न दवग्रारग्रा बिबक SBI HEAD Number 0070-60-800-0000 (Other
Receipts) मम हनग्नग्रासंक 08/08/2022 करो जमग्रा ककी गननी हिहै, अरग्रार्थत त नग्ननम 3,
4, व 7 कग्रा पग्रालग्न ककनग्रा गनग्रा।"
16. Even otherwise the moot question now comes before this Court is
the order dated 15-03-2024 and 24-03-2024 when order for
recounting was made and respondent No.1 was declared as
returned candidate. She was declared returned candidate because in
recounting she won by one vote. Earlier allegation of election
petitioner (present respondent No.1) was that some dead persons
were also included as voters in the whole election process. That
aspect assumes importance because in recounting alleged
irregularities were corrected/covered up. Therefore, substantial
justice has been done, hence scope of interference in writ
jurisdiction constricts.
17. One aspect deserves consideration is that even if for a moment
submissions of petitioner are accepted (although it is only for
discussion purpose) even then position is that respondent No.1 is
declared returned candidate that too after recounting of votes and
therefore, won by single vote. That recounting is done in just and
fair manner and no motive is alleged or attached to the said
process. Therefore, if any interference is caused at this stage, then
it would amount to reversal of democratic process and perpetuation
of illegality. Petitioner cannot be permitted to gain the benefit of
procedure by way of revival of illegality. That practice is
deprecated by the Apex Court.
18. In democratic setup recounting and then winning election by one
vote is laudable concept. By recounting earlier mistake if any
committed, then the same is rectified. If whole process is initiated
de novo, then it would revive the illegality by which petitioner was
elected by one vote illegally.
19. When learned Writ Court considered the facts and circumstances of
the case holistically and then passed a reasoned order then scope of
interference in writ appellate jurisdiction constricts. Even if this
Court causes interference and pass any order then the said may
serve the Law but certainly not the Justice. Therefore, in the
conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, interference
would amount to entrance in the realm of subjectivity and losing
objectivity.
20. In cumulative analysis, no case for interference is made out once
learned Writ Court given its finding in specific terms as well as on
the basis of substantial justice meted out. The appeal sans merits
and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by learned Writ Court is
affirmed.
21. Resultantly, appeal stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
CHAURASIY
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51da
e27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4
A A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C
2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2025.06.18 14:34:41 +05'30'
