Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1033 (RAJ)

Anju Singh v. Gauri

2017-04-20

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : 1. Pertaining to elections under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, election disputes are governed by the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, in addition to the Parent Act. 2. Rule 81 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 reads as under:- “81. Who may present election petition.-(1) A petition under rule 80 may be presented by any candidate at such election. Explanation. - The petition shall be deemed to have been duly presented, if it is delivered by the person making the petition or by person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. (2) No petition shall be deemed to have been presented under these rules unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 500/- along with the petition by way of security for the costs of the opposite party. (3) The petitioner shall also send a copy of the petition under a certificate of posting to the District Election Officer (Panchayats) concerned.” 3. Rule 84 reads as under:- “84. Appearance and acts.- Any appearance, application or act before the Judge may be made or done by the party in person or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf.” 4. The civil reference has been referred to a Division Bench inasmuch as two learned Single Judges of this Court have taken contrary views. The two views pertain to an election petition filed by an Advocate on the strength of a Vakalatnama executed by the election petitioner. One view taken is that on the strength of the Vakalatnama, the Lawyer would be authorised to present the election petition and in view of the explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 81, such election petition filed would be deemed to be presented under the authorisation of the election petitioner. The other view taken is that the Vakalatnama authorises the Lawyer to act and plead on behalf of the client and not to present the election petition. 5. A simple reading of the explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 81 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 makes it clear that an election petition shall be deemed to have been duly presented, if it is delivered by a person making the petition or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the election petitioner. 6. A simple reading of the explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 81 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 makes it clear that an election petition shall be deemed to have been duly presented, if it is delivered by a person making the petition or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the election petitioner. 6. Thus, it would be a question of fact to be determined with reference to the language of the Vakalatnama executed by the election petitioner. 7. If the Vakalatnama has a language which evinces that apart from acting and pleading, the Lawyer concerned has been authorised to present the petition, it would be a case of valid presentation of the election petition. 8. We answer the reference as under:- An election petition presented by a Lawyer on the strength of a Vakalatnama would be deemed to have been duly presented if the language of the Vakalatnama expressly records that the Lawyer is authorised to present the election petition. It would then be a question of fact to be determined by the Tribunal keeping in view the language of the Vakalatnama. If the language of the Vakalatnama expressly records that the Lawyer is authorised to present the election petition, it would be a case of valid presentation of the election petition. 9. The reference is answered. 10. The writ petition be placed before the learned Single Judge.