Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 227 (MP)

Dukhkhu Singh v. State of M. P.

2005-02-11

K.K.LAHOTI

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER has sought following reliefs :- (1) "the Honble Court may be pleased to call for the entire relevant record pertaining to the subject-matter for kind perusal of this Honble Court. (2) The Honble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order and direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner for holding the office of Sarpanch for a period of 5 years from the date of joining after the order passed by Honble Supreme Court. (3) Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed together cost of the petition. " Facts of the case are that the petitioner contested the election of the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Harrabhat, Tehsil Baihar, District Balaghat held in the year 1999-2000. In the said election one Rai Singh was declared elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner challenged his election by filing election petition. The election petition of the petitioner attained finality by order dated 23-4-2004 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2655/04 and it was held that the petitioner is entitled to hold the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner thereafter took the charge. Now contention of the petitioner is that he was wrongly deprived of holding the office of Sarpanch and, now is entitled to hold the office for a period of 5 years from the date of order passed by the Apex Court. It is also contended that in the re- counting he was successful but he was declined the benefit as returned candidate because of the Court orders. He could not hold the office of Sarpanch for the complete terms. Now the State has declared election of Panchayat, while petitioner is entitled to hold the office minimum for a period of 5 years as petitioner is the only person who was duly elected and Rai Singh was not duly elected Sarpanch. Because of the declaration of the election of Panchayat, petitioner has to leave his office before the expiry of his term of minimum 5 years. It is contended that the respondents be directed not to hold the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Harrabat till the completion of petitioners due term. The aforesaid contention may be considered in the light of Section 9 of M. P. Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). It is contended that the respondents be directed not to hold the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Harrabat till the completion of petitioners due term. The aforesaid contention may be considered in the light of Section 9 of M. P. Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). This section provides that every Panchayat shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer unless sooner dissolved under the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides that the newly elected Sarpanch shall be deemed to have assumed the charge of the office w. e. f. the date of first meeting as provided in Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act provides that the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat shall be held within 30 days from the date of publication of Section 19 of the Act. The office bearer of the Gram Panchayat shall hold office for five years from the date of the first meeting and no longer. Section 19 of the Act provides that every election of Sarpanch shall be published by the prescribed authority in such a manner as may be prescribed. It is not in dispute that after the election of Sarpanch, the election was published by the prescribed authority in accordance with the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides that the newly elected Sarpanch shall be deemed to have assumed the charge of the office with effect from the date of the first meeting as provided in Section 20 of the Act. Under Section 20 of the Act, the first meeting shall be held within 30 days from the date of publication of election under Section 19. Now the question arises whether the petitioner who succeeds in election petition finally by order dated 23-4-2004 is entitled to hold the office for five years after the petition allowed by the Apex Court. The aforesaid provision says that the elected Sarpanch shall be deemed to assume the charge of the office with effect from the date of first meeting as provided under Section 20 of the Act. The aforesaid deeming clause is specific in this regard and it shall be presumed that the petitioner assumed the charge on the date when the first meeting was convened, within 30 days from the date of publication of election. The aforesaid deeming clause is specific in this regard and it shall be presumed that the petitioner assumed the charge on the date when the first meeting was convened, within 30 days from the date of publication of election. Merely because of the aforesaid circumstances other person who at the relevant time declared as return candidate assumed the charge will not be a ground to the petitioner to hold the office for a further period of 5 years from the date of the order passed by the Apex Court. The duration of Panchayat is five years from the date of its first meeting unless it is dissolved prematurely. Petitioner is not entitled to hold the charge even after completion of the period of Panchayat. After notification of the new election, the elected Sarpanch shall assume the charge of the office w. e. f. the date of first meeting. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to hold the office from the date of order passed by the Apex Court has no merit. Petitioner is entitled to hold the charge till the constitution of new Panchayat or the elected Sarpanch assumes the charge in accordance with law. This petition has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed with no order as to cost.