Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 213 (MP)

Vishwamitra Pathak v. Ramlallu Bais

2001-03-07

DIPAK MISRA

body2001
Judgment ( 1. ) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 28-11-2000, Annexure P-4, passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, the Election Tribunal under the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2. ) THE facts as have been unfurled are that the petitioner instituted an election proceeding under Section 66-A of the Act before the respondent No. 2, challenging the election of respondent No. 1, for the office of Chairman of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Singrauli, Distt. Sidhi, on many a ground. After service of notice the respondent No. 1 entered appearance and filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that the election petition was devoid of substance and defective because of non-joinder of the parties and it was barred by limitation. Various assertions have been made to highlight that the election was conducted in an undemocratic manner and this Court in W. P. No. 1831/2000 had directed stay of the notification of the election but eventually refused to interfere. The aforesaid averments need not be stated in detail. While declining to interfere it was observed by this Court that the petitioner may approach the Election Tribunal for seeking remedy of his grievances. Thereafter the petitioner filed an election petition on 6-4-2000. As the question of limitation was raised before the Election Tribunal the said authority adverted to the same and came to hold by the impugned order that election proceeding was barred by limitation as the same was not instituted within 30 days from the date of publication of result by the concerned Collector. It is averred in the petition that the finding of the Election Tribunal is vulnerable inasmuch as there has been erroneous interpretation of the provision enshrined under Section 66-A of the Act. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by the answering respondent No. 1 contending, inter alia, that result of the election has been published by the Collector on 28-2-2000 and the same has been notified in Official Gazette dated 8-3-2000 but the relevant date being 28-2-2000 the order passed by the Election Tribunal cannot be faulted. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by the answering respondent No. 1 contending, inter alia, that result of the election has been published by the Collector on 28-2-2000 and the same has been notified in Official Gazette dated 8-3-2000 but the relevant date being 28-2-2000 the order passed by the Election Tribunal cannot be faulted. It has also been averred that the election petition was filed on 10-4-2000 ad hence, even if the date as mentioned in the Official Gazette notification is taken into consideration the election petition was time barred. ( 4. ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner highlighting that the election petition was filed on 6-4-2000 as the same is perceptible from the order-sheet as well as from the discussion made by the Election Tribunal in the impugned order. It is also setforth therein that the result was tabulated and declared on 28-2-2000 but was finalised on 8-3-2000 in the official gazette and hence, the stand taken in the return is untenable. ( 5. ) I have heard Mr. V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Shukla that the order passed by the Election Tribunal is totally pregnable inasmuch as he has computed the starting point of limitation from the date of declaration of result whereas the Statute mandates otherwise. Learned counsel has submitted that concept of notification in the official gazette has a different meaning and it cannot be equated with the publication of result. ( 6. ) MR. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the contrary, has harped on the language that the Collector has to get it published in the official gazette and as the Collector has published the result on 28-2-2000 the said date should be deemed to be the relevant date and that date has been mentioned in the official gazette. The learned counsel has also laid emphasis on the date of filing of the election referring to the order-sheet, contained in Annexure P-3 wherein there is some overwriting in respect of the date. ( 7. ) MR. The learned counsel has also laid emphasis on the date of filing of the election referring to the order-sheet, contained in Annexure P-3 wherein there is some overwriting in respect of the date. ( 7. ) MR. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the date of notification is the relevant date and not the dale of publication and, therefore, the order passed by the Election Tribunal is vulnerable. ( 8. ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to Section 66-A of the Act. It reads as under:- "66-A. Election Petition.-- (1) An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner to the Commissioner of the Division. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question is notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or dispose of according to such procedures as may be prescribed. " On a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is luminously clear that the election petition is to be presented within 30 days from the date on which the election in question is notified. In this context, it is also apposite to refer Section 12 (9) of the Act which has been brought into the Statute book by Act No. 27 of 1997. The said provision reads as under :- "section 12 (9) : Every election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be notified in the official gazette by the Collector. " In this context it is also relevant to refer to Rule 84 of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Nirvachan Rules, 1992. The relevant rule is sub-rule (1) of the aforesaid Rules. It reads as under :- "84 (1 ). After publication of results of election of the Members and Chairman of the Mandi Committee in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, the Collector, within a period of one month, shall convene the first meeting of Market Committee under sub-section (1) of Section 13 and shall publish it by affixing on the notice board of the Market Committee and the concerned Janpad Panchayat, a notice of the date, hour and place of such meeting at least ten clear days before the date of the meeting. A District Election Officer shall authorise an Officer not below the rank of Naib-Tehsildar to preside over such a meeting. " On a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions there remains no scintilla of doubt that the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are to be published in the official gazette. The notification has been brought on record as Annexure P-9 as well as Annexure R-1. On a perusal of the gazette notification it is perceivable that it is dated 8-3-2000. Submission of Mr. Chouhan is that underneath the said date there is mention of date 28-2-2000 which is indicative of the fact that the Collector had published the result on that date. This submission is noted to be rejected for the simple reason that the notification in the official gazette means the date on which the gazette in published. On a scrutiny of Annexure P-9 there is no trace of doubt that the gazette is dated 8-3-2000 and, therefore, it is to be held the result was notified on 8-3-2000. 8a. Now the question arises whether the petitioner had filed election petition within 30 days from 8-3-2000. On a perusal of the Annexure P-3, it appears that it was presented on 6-4-2000. True it is, initially it was written as 10-4-2000 but thereafter 6-4-2000 has been written and the same has been signed. Ordinarily, I would have called for the original record from the Election Tribunal to verify the date of presentation but I have not taken recourse to that exercise as in Paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order the Election Tribunal has categorically stated that the election petition was presented on 6-4-2000. There is no reason not to accept the said discussion. In fact, the whole contention with regard to limitation has been appreciated on the footing that the election petition was presented on 6-4-2000 which beyond 30 days from the date of publication i. e. , 28-2-2000. As I have already held that the limitation is to be computed from the date of notification i. e. , 8-3-2000 and the election petition was presented on 6-4-2000 it is within time. The approach of the Election Tribunal is indubitably erroneous and the same deserves to be lanceted in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction and accordingly, I so do. ( 9. The approach of the Election Tribunal is indubitably erroneous and the same deserves to be lanceted in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction and accordingly, I so do. ( 9. ) IN the result, the order passed on 28-11-2000 contained in Annexure P-4 is quashed and it is directed that the Election Tribunal shall proceed in accordance with law. It is expected that the respondent No. 2, the Commissioner shall take prompt steps to dispose of the election proceeding. ( 10. ) THE writ petition is allowed without any order as to costs. ( 11. ) WRIT Petition allowed.