Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 441 (MP)

Bina Pandey v. Mamta Devi

2012-04-25

AJIT SINGH, R.S.JHA

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeepth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2011 passed in W.P. No. 16827/10. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent no. 1 had filed an election petition under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred as Rules 1995) against the appellant on her being elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pahadiya, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat Raipur Karchulian, District Rewa. The election petition was filed by the respondent no. 1 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur Karchulian, however, the necessary deposit of security amount along with election petition was made by her before the Tahsildar, Raipur Karchulian who issued receipt vide MPTC 6. The appellant promptly filed an objection before the Sub Divisional Officer regarding non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1995 on the ground that the security amount was not deposited with the specified officer i. e. the Sub Divisional Officer but with the Tahsildar. The objection filed by the appellant was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 5.5.2010. Being aggrieved by which the appellant had filed W.P. No. 16827/10 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.12.2010. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the mandatory provisions of the rules 7 and 8 and the affidavit of the Collector, Rewa dated 10.5.2011 filed in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge wherein it has been clarified that the security amount has to be deposited with the specified officer i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the facts available on record, it is apparent that the respondent no. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the facts available on record, it is apparent that the respondent no. 1 had filed the election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer and had also tendered the security amount before him but the S.D.O. vide order dated 05.05.2010 directed the election petitioner to deposit the amount with the Tahsildar in view of the arrangement made by him on account of the non-availability of the regular establishment of Sub Divisional Officer and it was on this count and for this reason that the respondent no. 1 deposited the security amount with the Tahsildar. In fact the respondents in the return filed by them before the learned Single Judge have also brought on record a copy of the letter dated 12.01.2011 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer informing Shri Umakant Pandey under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that as per arrangement made by him in all election petitions filed against the election of the Sarpanch, security amount had to be deposited before the Tahsildar and receipt MPTC 6 was to be obtained. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the security amount was not deposited by the respondent no. 1 before the Tahsildar on her own but had been deposited on the directions and orders of the Sub Divisional Officer and that the said arrangement was followed in respect of all election petitions filed against the election of the Sarpanch before the S.D.O., Raipur Karchulian. 8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondent no. 1 had infact tendered security amount before the Sub Divisional Officer who did not accept the same and directed her to deposit the amount before the Tahsildar. 9. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the order of Sub Divisional Officer rejecting the petitioner’s objection inspite of the affidavit filed by the Collector, Rewa who has failed to explain the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer or the arrangement made by him. 10. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.