Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 98 (RAJ)

Prameshwari v. Suman Meheshwari

2018-01-05

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge is the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge No.2, Ajmer in election petition No.21/2016 (53/2015) whereby the election petition at the instance of the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter 'EP') has been allowed and the election of the petitioner-returned candidate ('RC') as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kanpura, Panchayat Samiti Srinagar, Ajmer set aside. 2. It is apparent that the impugned judgment is ex-parte as no instructions were pleaded on behalf of the RC by her counsel. 3. Ms. Sudesh Kasana appearing for the RC submitted that the RC was never served and in fact did not engage Shri Vijay Khanna counsel, who purportedly first appeared on her behalf before the trial court and then pleaded no instructions on 10.01.2017. It was submitted that the EP appears to have managed the whole show of purported service of the RC to facilitate non-representation on RC behalf such that her election on the post of Sarpanch could be quashed and set aside without any opportunity of defending the challenge to her election. 4. Record of the trial court which rendered the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017 was called for. Signatures of the RC in this petition were compared with her purported signatures in the Vakalatnama before the trial court engaging one Vijay Khanna as counsel and the application for copy of the election petition oddly filed by the RC before the Trial Court. Aside of the aforesaid, a FIR appears to have been lodged by the RC with regard to fraud in her having allegedly engaged Shri Vijay Khanna as her counsel in the election petition and a complaint to the Bar Council of Rajasthan in this regard has also been stated to have been filed. 5. On notice of this petition Mr. S.K. Saksena appearing for the EP with Mr. 5. On notice of this petition Mr. S.K. Saksena appearing for the EP with Mr. Ashish Saksena, submitted in the overall facts of the case to eschew any delay in the adjudication of this petition that the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017 be quashed and set aside and the election petition be remanded to the Trial Court for trial afresh subject to the condition that the RC be directed to appear before the Trial Court on a date to be fixed by this Court and the trial court be directed to dispose of the election petition afresh with due opportunity to the RC to her set up and lead her defence within a period of three months. He submitted that such a direction is necessary in view of the fact that 3 of the 5 year term of the petitioner-Sarpanch have already expired while the RC without the requisite education qualification mandated under Section 19(t) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') continues to hold the post of Sarpanch. 6. Heard the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case as also the very fair submission of Mr. S.K. Saksena counsel for the RC, I would quash and set aside the judgment dated 10.01.2017 and remand the matter to the Additional Senior Civil Judge No.2, Ajmer directing him to dispose of the election petition afresh within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 7. To eschew any delay in the trial of the remanded election petition, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.01.2018. Notice of the aforesaid date fixed in court to the counsel for the RC as also the EP with their consent shall be construed as notice to the parties in person. The EP and the RC are directed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed herein above and failure to so do would be at their own peril. 8. To effectuate the Court's directions herein above, adjournments in the trial of the election petition should not be granted except in unavoidable situation/s and only when an application for the purpose in writing is filed. And when so granted adjournment should be for the shortest possible time. 8. To effectuate the Court's directions herein above, adjournments in the trial of the election petition should not be granted except in unavoidable situation/s and only when an application for the purpose in writing is filed. And when so granted adjournment should be for the shortest possible time. The trial court shall also have the option, at its discretion of deciding miscellaneous applications filed, along with the final judgment in the election petition as can be done as per the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh v. Mairembam Prithviraj ( AIR 2015 SC 3783 ). 9. The petition stands allowed accordingly. 10. Record of the trial court be returned to it forthwith within a period of seven days from today, if necessary by a personal messenger. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to ensure compliance.