Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 708 (MP)

Savitri Bai v. Sarita Singh

2017-05-24

SANJAY YADAV

body2017
ORDER : Shri Sanjay Yadav, J. Order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Additional Collector cum Specified Officer under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, is being challenged. Vide impugned order the Specified Officer while partly allowing the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner, has rejected her plea that the election petition is not tenable against her election as President, Janpad Panchayat. 2. That elections were held for the posts of Janpad Panchayat Member across various Wards of Janpad Panchayat, Bina. The results were declared on 27.02.2015; whereby, the petitioner was declared elected from Ward No.4; whereas, respondent No.1 was elected from Ward No.16. Thereafter election for the post of President Janpad Panchayat was held amongst the members, wherein the petitioner were declared elected as President on 09.03.2015. 3. Aggrieved respondent No.1 filed an election petition against the election of the Petitioner as President and as Ward Member and against the election of respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. The election petition was filed on 07.04.2015. 4. Petitioner raised an objection as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that a consolidated petition against the election of various Ward Members cannot be filed and that the petition is barred by time. That Security amount in respect of each of the return candidate was not deposited along with the election petition. Contentions were denied by respondent No.1. 5. The Election Tribunal vide impugned order partly allowed the objection and declined to entertain the election petition against other elected members than the petitioners on the findings that, the election petitioner had deposited only Rs.1,000/- whereas the relevant Rule i.e., Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995, contemplates deposit of security amount for each returned candidate. 6. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal grossly erred in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner as to limitation and that a consolidated election petition could not have been filed. 7. Section 122 of Adhiniyam 1993, envisages that:- "122. Election Petition- (1) An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner:- (i) in case of (Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha) to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). 7. Section 122 of Adhiniyam 1993, envisages that:- "122. Election Petition- (1) An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner:- (i) in case of (Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha) to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise. (2) no such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be inquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed." 8. Thus, the contemplation under Section 122 is that an election petition is to be filed within 30 days from the date of notification. In the case at hand, there are two stages of election, one in respect of members of Janpad Panchayat and another in respect of President. Whereas, the elections of the members is direct, who in turn elect President amongst them. The election of members was notified on 27.02.2015 whereas President was declared elected on 09.03.2015. The election petition is admittedly filed on 07.04.2015 and is directed against members and the President. As the period of limitation prescribed is 30 days from the date of declaration of result, the petitioner is justified in raising the grievance against entertaining the petition against her election as Member. Because Sub-Section (2) of Section 122 of Adhiniyam mandates that "no such election petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within 30 days from the date on which election in question was notified." 9. In view whereof, the Tribunal is not justified in entertaining the time barred election petition against the election of the petitioner as Member. However, as to challenge of petitioner's election as President it is maintainable being filed within limitation as prescribed under Section 122 (1) of Adhiniyam, 1993. 10. The next question is whether a consolidated petition is tenable. In this context reference can be had of the Rule 3 of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules 1995, which provides that:- "3. 10. The next question is whether a consolidated petition is tenable. In this context reference can be had of the Rule 3 of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules 1995, which provides that:- "3. Presentation of election petition- (1) An election Petition shall be presented to the Specified Officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. (2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. 11. As the election petitioner had questioned the election of the petitioner as Member of the Ward as well as her being elected as Member of Janpad Panchayat it was well within her right to challenge the election of the petitioner as the Member of Janpad Panchayat and also that of President, Janpad Panchayat. 12. Therefore, no exception can be caused to the maintainability of the petition wherein the election petitioner had sought the setting aside of election of petitioner as Member of the Ward as also Member of Janpad Panchayat. 13. The petition is finally disposed of in above terms to the extent that the election petition which questions the petitioner's election as President, Janpad Panchayat, is tenable. No costs.