Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1233 (MP)

Ajuddhi Bai v. Rambai

2014-09-26

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard. 2. On the request of Shri Bansal, matter is finally heard. 3. The respondents No. 1 to 5 have not entered appearance despite service. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-11), whereby the Specified Officer/Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) has dismissed the election petition filed under Section 122 of Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, the 'Act'). 5. The petitioner filed the said election petition against the election of respondent No. 1. In the said election petition, an application was filed by the returned candidate stating that the election petitioner has not deposited Rs. 500/-/security amount before the Specified Officer along with the election petition. Thus, as per Rules 7 and 8 of the Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for brevity, the "1995 Rules"), the election petition needs to be dismissed. 6. Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when election petition was filed, there was no arrangement for depositing the security amount before the SDO and, therefore, the amount was deposited by way of challan in the treasury. By placing reliance on 2012 (2) MPWN 91 (Bina Pandey vs. Mamta Devi), Shri Bansal submits that the Specified Officer has committed an error in rejecting the election petition. He submits that in absence of arrangement the security amount was deposited before the treasury and, therefore, election petition should have been entertained. In addition, it is submitted that in the main reply the returned candidate has not taken any such objection. Lastly, reliance is placed on Annexure P-6, the order passed by this Court in WP No. 1001/2010 (Ujagar Singh vs. State of MP), whereby this Court directed to decide the election petition. 7. I have heard Shri Bansal at length. 8. Before dealing with the contention of the petitioner, it is apt to quote Rules 7 and 8 of 1995 Rules. It reads as under:- 7. Deposit of security.- At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer a sum of Rs. Five Hundred as security. Where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidates. 8. Deposit of security.- At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer a sum of Rs. Five Hundred as security. Where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidates. 8. Procedure on receiving petition.- If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers: Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (Emphasis Supplied) 9. In 2011 (1) MPWN 125 (Mohan Singh vs. Santosh), this Court opined that rule 7 of 1995 Rules is mandatory in nature. The petitioner could not have changed the course of procedure prescribed for filing of election petition provided in Section 122 of the Act. Since the amount was deposited by the petitioner in treasury, the order of the Specified Officer was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. 10. The bone of contention of Shri Bansal is based on the Division Bench judgment in Bina Pandey (supra). A plain reading of this judgment shows that the Specified Officer/SDO vide order dated 5.5.2010 directed the election petitioner to deposit the amount with the Tehsildar. This arrangement was made by him on account of non- availability of the regular establishment of SDO. In view of facts of that case, it is clear that attempt was made to deposit the amount by the election petitioner before the Specified Officer. The Specified Officer, in turn, directed the petitioner to avail the alternative arrangement made by him. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not made any effort to deposit the amount before the SDO nor the said authority made any such arrangement. Thus, the said judgment which is based on the different facts altogether has no application in the present case. This is settled in law that the judgment of a Court cannot be read as Euclid's theorem. It depends on factual foundation of a particular case in which the matter has been decided. In the peculiar facts of this case, the judgment in Mohan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable. 12. This is settled in law that the judgment of a Court cannot be read as Euclid's theorem. It depends on factual foundation of a particular case in which the matter has been decided. In the peculiar facts of this case, the judgment in Mohan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable. 12. As analyzed above, the Division Bench judgment in Bina Pandey (supra) is clearly distinguishable and has no application in the factual matrix of the matter. 13. Since mandatory requirement of rules 7 and 8 aforesaid is not complied with, I find no legal flaw in the order of the Specified Officer. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost.