Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 392 (MP)

RAMLALLU BAIS v. VISHWAMITRA PATHAK

2001-05-03

ARUN MISHRA, C.K.PRASAD

body2001
( 1 ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal under Clause x of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by Order dated 7-3-2001 passed in W. P. No. 7100/2000, whereby writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and it has been held that the Election Petition filed by him is within the period of limitation. ( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 Vishwamitra Pathak filed a Election Petition under Section 66-A of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa i. e. the Election Tribunal challenging the election of the appellant Ramlallu Bais as Chairman of Krishni Upaj Mandi, Singarouli. After service of notice, appellant herein, appeared and resisted the prayer of respondent No. 1 raising various pleas including the plea that the Election Petition is barred limitation as the same was not presented within 30 days from the date of publication of the result by the Collector. According to him the Collector declared the election on 28-2-2000 and respondent No. 1 having preferred the Election Petition on 6-4-2000, same is beyond the period of limitation. This contention of the appellant was upheld by the Election Tribunal by Order dated 28-11-2000. Respondent No. 1, aggrieved by the same preferred Writ Petition No. 7100/2000 before this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the said order. A learned Single Judge of this Court by Order dated 7-3-2001 allowed the writ petition held that on perusal of the provisions of Section 66-A of the Act, "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. " On fact, the learned Judge found that the result was notified on 8-3-2000 and hence the Election Petition filed by respondent No. 1 on 6-4-2000 was within 30 days i. e. the period of limitation prescribed under Section 66-A (2) of the Act. Accordingly it set aside the order of the Election Tribunal and remitted the matter back to it for decision on merits. ( 3 ) MR. D. S. Chouhan appears on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly it set aside the order of the Election Tribunal and remitted the matter back to it for decision on merits. ( 3 ) MR. D. S. Chouhan appears on behalf of the appellant. He contends that the Collector having declared the result on 28-2-2000, Election Petition filed by respondent No. 1 on 6-4-2000 was beyond the period of limitation and as such the learned single Judge erred in law in holding the Election Petition to be within time and setting aside the Order of the Tribunal. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the submission of Sri Chouhan, it is apt to understand the scheme of the Act and the Rules i. e. M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandii Samiti Nirvachan Rules, 1992 framed thereunder. To begin with, it is apt to refer to Section 12 (9) of the Act, which reads as following :"every election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be notified in the official gazette by the Collector. " ( 5 ) A plain reading for the aforesaid provision makes it clear that Collector is obliged to notify in the official Gazette every election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Market Committee. ( 6 ) ANOTHER provision which throws light on the issue, is Rule 84 (1) of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Nirvachan Niyam, 1992, which reads as under :-"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. " ( 7 ) ACCORDING to this rule, it is after publication of result of election of the Chairman of the Market Committee, in the Gazette, that the Collector is obliged to convene the first meeting of Market Committee within a month. In the background of the aforesaid statutory provision we refer to Section 66-A of the Act which had provided for presentation of the Election Petition. In the background of the aforesaid statutory provision we refer to Section 66-A of the Act which had provided for presentation of the Election Petition. Section 66-A of the Act reads as under :- (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 unles 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 the such procedures as may be prescribed. " ( 8 ) IT is trite to say that right to election or to be elected in a democracy, is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a statutory right. Similarly, right to challenge election is a statutory right and challenge to election can be made within the four corners of law. Here, Section 66-A of the Act in no uncertain terms provides that Election Petition shall not be admitted wihtin 30 days from the date on which the election in question is notified. Section 12 (9) of the Act obliges the Collector to notify the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman in the official Gazette. Such a Gazette Notification was published on 8-3-2000. ( 9 ) THERE is a little controversy to the date on which the election was notified in the official Gazette. It has been contended by the appellant that although the date of publication shown in the Gazette Notification is 8-3-2000 but underneath the said date there is mention of date 28-2-2000, which indicate the fact that the Collector had published the result on that date. As held earlier, Election Petition is required to be presented within 30 days from the date on which the election is notified in the official Gazette, as provided under Section 12 (9) of the Act, hence the purported publication of the result by the Collector is of no consequence. The Gazette shows the date of notification to be 8-3-2000. Hence, in agreement with the learned single Judge, we hold that the result was notification on 8-3-2000. The Gazette shows the date of notification to be 8-3-2000. Hence, in agreement with the learned single Judge, we hold that the result was notification on 8-3-2000. ( 10 ) FROM the analysis aforesaid, it is evident that the Election Petition is to be presented within 30 days from the date on which the election in question is notified and the date shown in the Gazette Notification shall be the date to ascertain the date of its Notification. We have no scintila of doubt that the view taken by the learned single Judge in the impugned Order flows from the scheme of the Act and based on relevant material. ( 11 ) IN the result, we dismiss the appeal unhesitatingly. Appeal dismissed. .