Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1041 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Rajendra Singh

2014-08-21

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This Contempt reference has been registered on the basis of the directions issued by the writ Court vide order dated 3.9.2012 passed in W.P. No.1862/2012. 3. The respondent Rajendra Singh Rawat was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Dongarpur in the elections held in the year 2002. One of the contesting candidate – Nemi s/o Ghamandi filed an election petition before the SDO – Election Tribunal questioning the election of the respondent under section 122 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Act of 1993’). In the election petition the petitioner prayed a relief of recounting, that was granted by the prescribed authority. 4. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent Rajendra Singh Rawat in a writ petition before the writ Court which was registered as W.P.No.1862/2012. In the petition filed before the writ Court, the respondent pleaded that he was not made party in the election petition, hence, his election could not be set aside or questioned in the election petition. The relevant pleadings are in para 5.9 of the writ petition which are as under :- “5.9 That after recording the statement of witnesses, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 21.2.2002 for recounting of votes and fixed the case for recounting on 25.2.2002. Thereafter recounting of the votes was made in haphazard manner without following any due procedure and vide impugned order dated 25.2.2012 election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dongarpur has been declared as void and respondent No.2 has been declared as elected on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dongarpur. Copies of order dated 21.2.2012 and 25.2.2012 are at Annexure P/6 and P/7. It is relevant to mention here that respondent No.1 has not framed any issue in respect to the recounting of votes and it is well settled position of law that without framing any issue for recounting, recounting cannot be directed further on the basis of the evidence available on record no case for recounting of the votes is made out. Since the petitioner who has been declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dongarpur has not been made party in Election Petition, therefore, his election as Sarpanch as Gram Panchayat Dongarpur cannot be set aside.” 5. Since the petitioner who has been declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dongarpur has not been made party in Election Petition, therefore, his election as Sarpanch as Gram Panchayat Dongarpur cannot be set aside.” 5. The respondent also pleaded in ground No.6.3 in the writ petition that he was not made party in the election petition, hence, the same is incompetent. The relevant pleadings are as under :- “6.3 That since the return candidate of the post of Sarpanch as Gram Panchayat Dongarpur i.e. petitioner has not been arrayed as respondent in Election Petition, therefore, the same is in competent and no relief of declaring respondent No.2 as elected on the post of Sarpanch as Gram Panchayat Dongarpur can be granted in such incompetent Election Petition, inspite of it respondent No.1 has not only held Election of the petitioner on the post of Gram Panchayat Dongarpur as void but has also declared respondent No.2 as an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dongarpur, which is not only illegal but also contrary to law and without having any authority under law.” 6. He further pleaded that no notice was served upon him hence the order is illegal. Relevant pleadings are as under :- “6.5 That since the petitioner has not been arrayed as respondent in Election Petition and no notice has been served upon him, therefore, declaration of his election as void in such Election Petition in which he has not been made party is quite illegal and also without having any jurisdiction and authority under law.” 7. The petition came up for hearing before the writ Court on 7.3.2012. Writ Court granted stay in favour of the respondent on the ground that no notice was served on the respondent neither he was impleaded as party in the election petition. The relevant portion of the order passed by the writ Court on 7.3.2012 reads as under :- “Shri Dudawat submits that petitioner is neither impleaded in the election petition nor served, in the said matter and without hearing him, the impugned order has been passed annulling his election. He further submits that Rule 3 of the relevant rules are grossly violated. Subject to hearing other side and on perusal of the record, effect and operation of impugned order Annexure – P/7 shall remain stayed. List this matter on Thursday (15.3.2012) for further orders/final disposal. Certified copy as per rules.” 8. He further submits that Rule 3 of the relevant rules are grossly violated. Subject to hearing other side and on perusal of the record, effect and operation of impugned order Annexure – P/7 shall remain stayed. List this matter on Thursday (15.3.2012) for further orders/final disposal. Certified copy as per rules.” 8. Subsequently, the fact came to the notice of the writ Court that the respondent suppressed the material facts, notice was served upon him, he appeared before the Election Tribunal and contested the case. Vide order dated 19.7.2012 the Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit in this regard. The relevant portion of the order passed by the writ Court is as under :- “Shri H.K.Shukla while pressing for vacation of stay submits that the main ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that he was not impleaded by the election petitioner in the proceedings under section 122 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The petitioner has further stated that notices have not been issued to him. Shri Shukla submits that he has filed entire record of the Court below, which shows that the present petitioner has not only signed various documents, he even filed his own affidavit. Learned counsel submits that there is serious suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner. He filed the description of the order sheets and record of Election Tribunal along with a list of documents. Copy of the same is supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to file a detailed affidavit in which he shall specifically mention about each document mentioned in the aforesaid list of documents and shall state on oath whether it contains his signature or not. Let it be done within three days.” 9. In the affidavit the respondent denied that he was impleaded as party in the election petition. The relevant portion of para 3 of the affidavit is as under :- “3. Let it be done within three days.” 9. In the affidavit the respondent denied that he was impleaded as party in the election petition. The relevant portion of para 3 of the affidavit is as under :- “3. That after getting knowledge of filing of some petition is respect of election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dongarpur, I contacted Advocate at Joura, and engaged him to protect my interest and also appeared for protecting my interest, however, facts remain that I have not been impleaded as a party in the election petition even by correcting the name as mentioned in the election petition, as the declaration of the result, till last. Taken it to be that I participated, even than it is not in dispute that, I have not been arrayed as respondent in the election petition and my election was not challenged, in the election petition filed by respondent No.2.” 10. The facts came to the knowledge of the Court that the respondent participated in the election proceedings before the Tribunal. He had engaged an advocate and filed his Vakalatnama. He took part in the election petition. There are signatures in the proceedings of various dates. He filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC in support of an application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC. It means that he had participated before the Election Tribunal and contested the election petition. The findings recorded by the Court in para 15 of the order is as under :- “15. In the writ petition, the petitioner has no where disclosed that he had actually appeared before the Election Tribunal. Admittedly, petitioner had engaged an Advocate and filed his vakalatnama. He admittedly took part in the Election proceedings. It is also not disclosed by the petitioner as to how he came to know about the proceedings under section 122 of the Adhiniyam. The respondents have stated that on various dates the petitioner’s signatures are there in the proceedings before the authority below. He filed his affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and in support of an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. This Court passed a specific order dated 9.8.2012 directing the petitioner to file a specific affidavit indicating all the dates in which he had actually appeared in Election proceedings. He filed his affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and in support of an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. This Court passed a specific order dated 9.8.2012 directing the petitioner to file a specific affidavit indicating all the dates in which he had actually appeared in Election proceedings. The petitioner, in turn, had filed a sketchy and evasive affidavit dated 14.8.2012 and did not comply with the specific order passed by this Court. It was obligatory for the petitioner to file an affidavit in the manner directed by this Court and to disclose full and complete facts. The petitioner was again asked on the next date whether he wants to comply with the order, the petitioner stated that he is satisfied by the affidavit aforesaid. Thus, the petitioner has not chosen to disclose full, correct and necessary facts. Thus, the question is whether petitioner deserves hearing on merits.” 11. Against the aforesaid order, a writ appeal was filed. It was registered as W.A.No.605/2012. Division Bench of this Court confirmed the findings of facts recorded by the writ Court and held that the respondent participated in the proceedings before the Election Tribunal. The relevant findings of the Division Bench are as under :- “4. This position was dealt with by the learned writ Court in great detail in the impugned order by the learned writ Court and it has been categorically held that the appellant submitted an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. which was rejected. He also cross examined the witnesses. Thus, in these state of facts, we hereby hold that learned writ Court did not commit any error in holding that appellant was not heard.” 12. So the findings of facts that the respondent participated before the Election Tribunal and he had contested the election petition have been affirmed by the Division Bench also and are binding. 13. As stated above, the respondent deliberately and consciously pleaded in the writ petition that he had not participated in the election petition, nor he was heard by the election Tribunal and the order was passed against him. On this assertion he also obtained stay in his favour. 14. 13. As stated above, the respondent deliberately and consciously pleaded in the writ petition that he had not participated in the election petition, nor he was heard by the election Tribunal and the order was passed against him. On this assertion he also obtained stay in his favour. 14. Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1971) defines a “criminal contempt”, which reads as under :- “(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;” 15. Section 2 (c) (ii) of the Act of 1971 clearly mentions that a criminal contempt means that the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which prejudices, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. By submitting a false plea before the Court that the respondent was not made party in the petition and was not heard by the Election Tribunal and also the respondent obtained interim order of stay in his favour, in our opinion, the respondent interfered and prejudiced the judicial proceeding in his favour. 16. Constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court reported in (1974) 1 SCC 375 has held as under :- “The paramount but restrictive jurisdiction to protect the public against substantial interference with the stream of justice cannot be polluted or diffused into an intimidatory power for the Judges to strike at adverse comments on administrative, legislative (as under Articles 225, 226 and 227) and extra-judicial acts. Commonsense and principle can certainly accept a valid administrative area so closely integrated with Court work as to be stamped with judicial character such as constitution of benches, transfer of cases, issue of administrative directions regarding submissions of findings or disposal of cases by subordinate Courts, supervision of judicial work of subordinate Courts and the like. Not everything covered by Articles 225, 227 and 235 will be of this texture.” 17. As stated above, in our opinion, the respondent committed the criminal contempt of the Court. 18. Learned senior counsel has contended that the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and the matter has already been settled and the respondent has submitted unconditional apology, hence, the contempt proceeding against the respondent could be dropped. 19. Aforesaid contention of the learned counsel could not be accepted. The act of the respondent is serious in nature. The respondent had taken a false plea and made false pleadings. On the basis of those pleadings, the respondent got the relief from the Court. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the respondent deserves punishment because if we do not award any punishment, then in future unscrupulous petitioners would pollute the stream of the Court which would adversely affect the administration of justice and its purity. Consequently, we hold the respondent guilty of criminal contempt of Court and award punishment of simple imprisonment for three months. Office is directed to issue warrant of arrest against the respondent to serve the punishment.