Khumano Bai v. State Of Madhya Pradesh — 1994 DIGILAW 520 (MP)

ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. In this petition the election of Smt. Lakshmibai, respondent No. 4, has been challenged on the ground that nomination paper of one Manjit Kaur who figures as respondent No. 2, was wrongly accepted. It is alleged that as a person who was not eligible to take part in the process of election, has been permitted to contest the election, this has materially effected the result of the election. 2. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the election of respondent No. 4 can be challenged only by way of an election petition. 3. This position is not accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. To counter the argument raised by the State Shri Arun Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the remedy of election petition provided under the Act is illusory inasmuch as election petition has to be preferred before a Sub Divisional Officer and other officers designated in Section 122. According to him, as these officers take active part in the process of election and are actively associated with the entire process of election, the election petition should necessarily be entrusted to a person who can act as an independent authority. 4. A challenge has also been made to the voters' list which was prepared for holding the election in question. 5. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the State it would be appropriate to deal with the same at the first instance. 6. In the matter of challenge to an election of a citizen to a Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Parishad constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the Constitution Seventy Third Amendment Act, 1993, places these units of local Government at the same pedestal on which the State Legislature and Parliament are placed. Article 243-O provides in categoric terms that an election held to any Panchayat can be called in question only by way of an election petition. The discretion which hitherto before was exercised by the Courts under Article 226 prior to the aforementioned constitutional amendment is not available now. Article 243-O provides in categoric terms that an election held to any Panchayat can be called in question only by way of an election petition. The discretion which hitherto before was exercised by the Courts under Article 226 prior to the aforementioned constitutional amendment is not available now. Earlier the view was that when the facts are not disputed, jurisdiction can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to "nip the evil in the bud" or as H. S. Bedi, J. speaking for a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nachhattar Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab and others, (1993) 14 Legal Reports and Statutes (Pb) 33 observed :- "This Court would not therefore throw out the writ petition at the very threshold and compound the sense of injury and injustice inflicted on the petitioners with another one at the hands of the Court by circumscribing artificially the scope of Article 226. The Court in exercising restraint must not clip its wings, though interference should be made to use the oft repeated words in the rarest of the rare cases." The above discretion is not available now and what was said by the Supreme Court in Nanhoo Mal and Ors. v. Hira Mal and others, AIR 1975 SC 2140 has been given constitutional recognition. It was said : "............Therefore, the election to the office of the President could be challenged only according to the procedure prescribed by that Act and that is by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in no other way. The Act provides only for one remedy, that remedy being an election petition to be presented after the election is over and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage." 7. The Supreme Court in Nanhoo Mal's case followed what the Court said as early as 1952 in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64 . In this case, the nomination papers of N. P. Ponnuswami were rejected. He filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras seeking a writ of certiorari. The prayer made was that the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination papers be quashed. This writ petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court. In this case, the nomination papers of N. P. Ponnuswami were rejected. He filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras seeking a writ of certiorari. The prayer made was that the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination papers be quashed. This writ petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court. When the matter came before the Supreme Court it was observed that the view expressed by the Madras High Court was the only view which could be taken in view of the bar created under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. 8. Before further dealing with this matter, it would be appropriate to note the contents of Article 329 which deal with the elections to Parliament and State Legislatures as enshrined in the Constitution at the time of its inception and the provisions of Article 243O; now incorporated in the Constitution by Constitution Seventy-third Amendment Act, 1992. These provisions read as under :- Article 329 Article 243O Notwithstanding anything in this Bar to interference by courts in Constitution... - electoral matters.- Notwithstanding in this Constitution,- (a) the validity of any law relating to the (a) the validity of any law relating to de-limitation of constituencies, or the delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be constituencies, made or purporting made under Article 327 or Article 328, to be made under Article 243K, shall not be called in question in any not be called in question in any court; court; (b) no election to either House of (b) no election to any Panchayat Parliament or to the House or either shall be called in question except by House of the Legislature of a State shall an election petition presented to be called in question except by an such authority and in such manner as election petition presented to such is provided for by or under any law authority and in such manner as may be made by the Legislature of a State provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. 9. A perusal of the aforementioned provisions indicates that there is no dissimilarity between the two provisions and what was said by the Supreme Court on 21st January, 1952 in N. P. Ponnuswami's case would be relevant and have binding effect even today. 10. 9. A perusal of the aforementioned provisions indicates that there is no dissimilarity between the two provisions and what was said by the Supreme Court on 21st January, 1952 in N. P. Ponnuswami's case would be relevant and have binding effect even today. 10. The term 'election' as used in Article 329(b) was taken note of and it was held that it would include the entire process to be gone through to return a candidate to the forum to which he was seeking election. In para 7 the Constitution Bench observed as under :- ".......As we have seen, the most important question for determination is the meaning to be given to the word 'election' in Article 329(b). That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating, in a candidate being declared elected." The Constitution Bench approved the pre-constitution view expressed by Madras and Lahore High Courts in Srinivasalu v. Kuppuswami, AIR 1928 Mad. 253 and Sat Narain Gurwala v. Hanuman Parshad and another, AIR 1946 Lahore 85. It was further observed : "It seems to me that the word "election" has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the legislature. The use of the expression "conduct of elections" in Article 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be read consistently into the other provisions which occur in part XV including Article 329(b). That the word "election" bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins." 11. That the word "election" bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins." 11. This subject is dealt in Halsbury's Laws of England and the following passage is relevant : "Although the first formal step in every election is the issue of the writ, the election is considered for some purposes to begin at an earlier date. It is a question of fact in each case when an election begins in such a way as to make the parties concerned responsible for " breaches of election law the test being whether the contest is 'reasonably imminent'. Neither the issue of the writ nor the publication of the notice of election can be looked to as fixing the date when an election begins from this point of view. Nor, again, does the nomination day afford any criterion. The election will usually begin at least earlier than the issue of the writ. The question when the election begins must be carefully distinguished from that as to when 'the conduct and management of an election may be said to begin'. Again, the question as to when a particular person commences to be a candidate is a question to be considered in each case." 12. Considering the impact of the words 'no election shall be called for in question', the Supreme Court in N. P. Ponnuswami's case (supra) observed : "........any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate state in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court.'' It was further observed :- ".............If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329(b) and in setting up a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal, which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it." The need to have a tribunal to decide the election dispute is part of system. Dealing with this aspect it was said : ".......Broadly speaking, before an election machinery can be brought into operation, there are three requisites which require to be attended to, namely, (1) there should be a set of laws and rules making provisions with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections, and it should be decided as to how these laws and rules are to be made; (2) there should be an executive charged with the duty of securing the due conduct of elections; and (3) there should be a judicial tribunal to deal with disputes arising out of or in connection with elections." Taking resort to the statutory remedy only was highlighted in para 12 of the judgment in the following words : "It is now well-recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of." It was brought out that the law provides only one remedy and-only this remedy can be resorted to. It was observed : ".......Representation of the People Act to state that the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage." Ultimately in para 16 the conclusions were summed up as under : "(1) Having regard to the important functions which the-legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that, the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election" and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress." Thus election petition is the only remedy available now. Any other interpretation would lead to two decisions being rendered, one by the Court under Article 226 and the other by the tribunal constituted to decide the election petition. This clearly is not intended and in fact has been expressly ruled out. '. 13. Now the relevant provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 may also be noticed. The term 'election' and 'election proceedings' have been defined in Section 2(iv) and (v). These provisions read as under : "2(iv) "Election" means election of office-bearers of panchayat and includes co-option of office-bearers; 2(v) "Election Proceedings" mearis the proceedings commencing from the nomination of a candidate for election or co-option and ending with the declaration of result of such election or co-option, as the case may be;" The word co-option is also included in the term 'election'. 14. Elections are conducted under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules of 1994'). There is an elaborate procedure provided for conducting the elections. These are contained in Chapters VI to X of the Rules of 1994. Chapter VI deals with conduct of elections, Chapter VII deals with the candidates and their agents, Chapter VIII deals with the General Procedure of election, Chapter IX deals with Poll and Voting for election and Chapter X deals with counting of votes with the declaration of results. The manner in which the election programme is to be announced and the manner in which the nomination papers are to be filed and scrutinized has been duly elaborated. The manner in which the election programme is to be announced and the manner in which the nomination papers are to be filed and scrutinized has been duly elaborated. The procedure for holding poll, counting of the ballot papers and other intermediary stages have been clearly indicated in the rules of 1994. The result of election is to be declared under Rule 77. 15. Section 121 of the Adhiniyam reiterates what stands enshrined in Article 243O of the Constitution of India. This section reads as under :- "121. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. - (1) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats in such constituencies made or purporting to be made under this Act shall not be called in question in any Court." 16. Section 122 of the Adhiniyam provides that election can be challenged by filing an election petition. This section reads as under :- "122. Election petition. - (1) An election or co-option under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner :- (i) in case of Gram Panchayat to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue); (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zilla 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 or co-option in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired "into or disposed of according to such procedure as may be prescribed." 17. As the State Government has not framed any rules so far, the rules framed under the earlier enactments would continue to apply. These rules are Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962. As a matter of both sides are agreed that these rules would apply. Evern otherwise, the above rules would continue to be in force. See Section 130 which reads as under :- "130. .Repeal and Savings. These rules are Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962. As a matter of both sides are agreed that these rules would apply. Evern otherwise, the above rules would continue to be in force. See Section 130 which reads as under :- "130. .Repeal and Savings. - (1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990 (No. 13 of 1990), shall stand repealed (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) : Provided that the repeal shall not affect: (a) the previous operation of the repealed Act or anything duly done of suffered thereunder; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, acdrued or incurred under the repealed Act; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture of punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the repealed Act; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act has not been enforced : Provided further that, subject to the preceding proviso anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, or delegation made, notification, notice, order, instruction or direction issued, rule, regulation, byelaws, form, or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted, registration affected, tax imposed or fee or rate levied), under the repealed Act shall, in so far as it is in force immediately before the coming into force of this Act and is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act. (2) The arrangement existing for the Gram Panchayat, Janapad Panchayat and Zila Parishad under Section 127 of the repealed Act shall continue, until the corresponding Gram Panchayat, Janapad Panchayat and Zila Parishad as the case may be, are constituted under this Act. (3) The Collector, shall apportion the assets and liabilities of the existing Gram Panchayat amongst the corresponding Gram Panchayats constituted under this Act according to the guideline issued by the State Government for the purposes. (3) The Collector, shall apportion the assets and liabilities of the existing Gram Panchayat amongst the corresponding Gram Panchayats constituted under this Act according to the guideline issued by the State Government for the purposes. (4) The assets and liabilities of existing Janapad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat shall stand transferred to Janapad Panchayat and Zila Parishad respectively constituted under this Act." 18. Under the above rules election can be challenged oh the grounds mentioned in Rule 22. This rule reads as under : "22. Grounds for declaring election or co-option to be void. - (1) subject to the provision of sub-rule (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion - (a) that on the date of his election or co-option a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the contest of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election or co-option, in so far as it concerns returned candidate, has been materially affected, - (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the prescribed authority shall declare the election or co-option of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the prescribed authority a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election or co-option by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the instructions and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practice at the election or co-option; and (c) that in all other respects the election or co-option was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, then the prescribed authority may decide that the election or co-option of the returned candidate is not void." Thus all illegalities which materially affect the result of the election can be challenged in an election petition. This challenge to an election has necessary to be made by way of election petition after the election is over. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in view of the bar created by Article 243O of the Constitution. 19. Another argument which has been raised at the time of argument was that as election petition is to be filed before an Officer who is directly under the administrative control of State Government remedy of election petition so provided is illusory. It has been argued that these officials actually participate in the election process at all levels. They are charged with the duty to judge the fairness of their own conduct. It is their contention that a fair and just decision of an election petition is of utmost importance for a healthy democratic set up and this is not expected from the officers specified in Section 122 of the Adhiniyam. According to them, the trial of election petition should be placed in the hands of impartial Judges. 20. This argument has been examined in depth. A right to vote or to contest any election is not a constitutional or fundamental right. It is not even a common law right. It is just a statutory right. One can elect or be elected in accordance with the statute which confers the right. Similar is the position with regard to the right to dispute an election. A right to vote or to contest any election is not a constitutional or fundamental right. It is not even a common law right. It is just a statutory right. One can elect or be elected in accordance with the statute which confers the right. Similar is the position with regard to the right to dispute an election. The statutory right has to be exercised in strict conformity with the provisions of the statute which confers it. The rule is stated by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford, (1859) 6 C.B. (N.S.) 336, at p. 356, in the following passage : "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law; there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, the party suing has his election pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy; there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it........The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The above principle was approved in N. P. Ponnuswami's case (supra) and the Supreme Court has been continuously reiterating since then. 21. In Jyoti Basu and Ors. v. Debi Ghosal and others, AIR 1982 SC 983 , it was observed as under : "A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is anomalously enough neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a strait-jacket. Thus the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature except as provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and again no such election may be questioned except in the manner provided by the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation of the People Act has been held to be a complete and self-contained code within which must be found any right claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. The question is who are parties to an election dispute and who may be impleaded as parties to an election petition. We have already referred to the scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to rid ourselves of notions based on Common Law or Equity. We see that we must seek an answer to the question within the four corners of the statute. What does the Act say?" 22. We have already referred to the scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to rid ourselves of notions based on Common Law or Equity. We see that we must seek an answer to the question within the four corners of the statute. What does the Act say?" 22. Such being the situation, I am of the view that a person, who wishes to raise an election dispute has to file an electipn petition before the Authority prescribed under the Adhiniyam. This is an efficacious and proper remedy provided by law which has given the eligible candidate the right to elect or being elected. The right having been conferred by the Statute has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions thereof and in no other way. Furthermore, if a litigant is not satisfied with the decision of the Prescribed Authority, the remedy by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always available. That provides enough safeguard to the aggrieved party. 23. As a challenge has been made to the voters' list prepared under the Act and the Rules this aspect of the matter is also being dealt with in this petition. The qualifications for a person who wants to get himself registered as a voter have been indicated in Section 5 of the Adhiniyam. The detailed procedure for preparing voters' list is indicated in Chapter III of the rules of 1994. The preliminary voter list is prepared under Rule 8, claims and objections are invited under Rule 9 and these objections are decided under Rule 10. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Registration Authority can prefer an appeal under Rule 10(5). Voters Mist attains finality and no amendment is permissible once a notice of election has been issued under Rule 27 of the Rules. This is so provided in Rule 10(5) proviso. The law attaches great importance to the voters' list once it is finalized and this is the precise reason for laying in expressed terms that once a notice of election has been issued under Rule 27 then no amendment is permissible in the list. 24. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, page 236, Paragraph 450 deal with the aspect of finality attached to a voters' list in the following words :- "450. Effect of the register. 24. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, page 236, Paragraph 450 deal with the aspect of finality attached to a voters' list in the following words :- "450. Effect of the register. The register of parliamentary election is conclusive of the following question, namely whether or not a person registered in it was on the qualifying date resident at the address shown; whether or not that address is in any constituency or any particular part of a constituency; and whether or not a person registered in it is registered as a service voter. The register of local government electors is conclusive on the following questions, namely whether or not a person registered in it was on the qualifying date resident at the address shown; whether or not that address is in any local government area or any particular part of a local government area; and whether or not a person registered in it is registered as a service voter. If any entry in the register of parliamentary or local government electors gives a date as that on which the person named will attain voting age, the entry is conclusive that until the date given in the entry he is not of voting age nor entitled to be treated as an elector except for purposes of an election at which the day fixed for the poll is that or a later date." As such the. objection taken by the petitioner that certain persons were wrongly included in the voters' list is again a matter which should have been agitated before the issuance of notice of election under Rule 27. As indicated above, the right to take part in the process of election is a statutory right and it is to be enforced in accordance with the terms of the Statute. As such a challenge sought to be made in the voters' list after the election is over, cannot be entertained in the present petition. 25. I am, accordingly, of the view that the question as to whether the nomination papers of Manjit Kaur were wrongly or rightly accepted is a matter which can be determined only in an election petition. This election petition has to be preferred in terms of the statutory provisions. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Allahabad High Court reported as Basant Prasad Shrivastava v. State of U. P, AIR 1994 Allahabad 112. This election petition has to be preferred in terms of the statutory provisions. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Allahabad High Court reported as Basant Prasad Shrivastava v. State of U. P, AIR 1994 Allahabad 112. The Division Bench observed as under :- "The election process having started it must come to its logical conclusion. Once it has to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing election petition or civil suit in accordance with law. In such a proceeding the election may not be set aside if the alleged illegality or irregularity has not materially affected the result of the election. Approach to Court at intermediate stages in the election is bound to result in an office either remaining vacant or being occupied by a person whose entitlement to hold the office has ceased. Neither is a happy situation. It is, therefore, desirable that the election process should end as early as possible and the declaration of result should not be deferred through repeated interim orders passed from time to time." 26. I am, accordingly, of the view that the question as to whether the nomination papers of Manjit Kaur were wrongly or rightly accepted is a matter which can be determined only in an election petition. This election petition has to be preferred in terms of the statutory provisions. The objection taken by the State that on account of the bar created under Article 243O and Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the present petition is not maintainable is valid. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.