Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 439 (MP)

Rajesh Kumar v. Manakchand

2024-05-21

PRANAY VERMA

body2024
ORDER 1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.2.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Officer cum Specified Officer, Sub- Division Neemuch, respondent No.13, whereby he has dismissed an application filed by him under Rule 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3 were the contestants for the post of Sarpanch for Panchayat Election in village Dhaneriya Kala, District Neemuch. The petitioner was the successful candidate. Respondent No.1 thereafter preferred an election petition before respondent No.13 alleging corrupt practices against the petitioner and prayed for setting aside of his election. Upon service of notice upon him the petitioner filed an application under section 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1995 before respondent No.13 raising objection as regards maintainability of the election petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions of rules 3 and 7 of the said rules. The application was contested by respondent No.1. By the impugned order the application has been rejected against which this petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules on part of respondent No.1. The security deposit was required to be made by him along with the election petition. The same has however not been done. The said deposit had already been made on 17.7.2023 whereas the election petition was presented on 5.9.2023. Such deposit of security amount cannot be said to be compliance of rule 7 of the rules. It is further submitted that the election petition was not presented by respondent No.1 in person which is also a mandatory requirement entailing dismissal of the petition at the threshold. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of this Court in Sarla Tripathi v. Kaushilya Devi and others [2001 MPLJ Online 1]. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 5. The provisions as regards election petition under M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 are contained in section 122 which reads as under: "122. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 5. The provisions as regards election petition under M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 are contained in section 122 which reads as under: "122. Election petition - (1) An election [x x x] under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner :- (i) in case of [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 [x x x] in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed." 6. The relevant rules of Rules, 1995 for the purpose of this petition are rules, 3, 7 and 8 which are as under: "3. Presentation of election petition -(l) All 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. 7. Deposit of security -At the time of presentation of an election petition; the petitioner shall deposit with the specifid 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." 7. 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." 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since deposit of the security amount was not made by respondent No.1 along with the election petition hence it deserves dismissal has to be considered in view of language of rule 7 and by giving it a meaningful interpretation in view of the decisions of this Court as summarized in the case of Sarla (supra). 8. The principle as has been laid down in the case of Sarla (supra) is that the security deposit has to be made at the time of presentation of the election petition and there is no option to deposit the said amount on a later day. Any deposit made after the date of presentation of election petition, even though the same may be within the prescribed period of limitation for preferring the election petition, would not be due compliance. 9. However, neither in the Rules nor in any judgment has any prohibition been made that such deposit of security amount cannot be made prior to the presentation of the election petition. The mandatory requirement is that the election Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain an election petition only when on the date of its presentation the security amount has been deposited. The expression 'at the time of presentation of the election petition' has hence necessarily to be construed as either at the time of presentation or at any time prior to it. What is mandated is the deposit having been made when the election petition is presented. To hold that the security deposit has to be made only along with the presentation of election petition and cannot be made prior to such presentation would be violative of true import and spirit of rule 7. 10. The order sheet dated 5.9.2023 of the Sub Divisional Officer records that the election petition was presented by respondent No.1. Since there is a categoric recording to that effect it cannot be said at this stage that there has been any violation on part of respondent No.1 in the matter of personal presentation of the petition. 10. The order sheet dated 5.9.2023 of the Sub Divisional Officer records that the election petition was presented by respondent No.1. Since there is a categoric recording to that effect it cannot be said at this stage that there has been any violation on part of respondent No.1 in the matter of personal presentation of the petition. Merely because respondent No.13 did not obtain signatures of respondent No.1 in the order sheet it cannot be assumed that the election petition was not personally presented by him. Nowhere in the Rules has it been provided that along with presentation of the election petition, the election petitioner would also have to sign upon the order sheet or anywhere else in the record for the purpose of proving his personal presence and presentation of the election petition by him. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition was not personally presented by respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having been committed by respondent No.13 in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.