Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Bai vs Geeta Bai on 3 April, 2017
1
W. P. No.4745/2017
W. P. No.4745/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Om Namdeo, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Prashant Chourasia, learned counsel
respondent No.1.
Shri Vikram Johri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.8 and 9.
As respondent No.1, the contesting respondent has entered appearance on caveat, the matter is finally heard with their consent.
Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Specified Officer, under the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993; whereby, an election petition filed by respondent No.1 under Section 122 of Adhiniyam 1993 read with Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995, has been allowed and the election of petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhujpura Kala Tahsil, Bairasiya, District Bhopal has been declared as null and void on the ground of malpractice.
Election was held on 22.02.2015. Counting was 2 W. P. No.4745/2017 held on 26.02.2015 wherein petitioner was declared winner by two votes.
On an election petition filed by respondent No.1, the Specified Officer by order dated 10.11.2015 directed for recounting of votes. Petitioner challenged the order vide Writ Petition No.19692/2015; wherein, on 23.11.2015 an interim order was passed that the recounting may continue; however, the result thereof would not be declared. Subsequently, as in recounting the margin of difference of vote increased to 53, petitioner withdrew the petition on 08.12.2015. The parties were granted liberty to assail the decision taken by the Election Tribunal. After recounting the Tribunal/Specified Officer vide impugned order has declared the election as null and void.
Before coming to the finding and the reasons which led the Tribunal declare the election as null and void, appropriate it is to first take note of the findings by order dated 10.11.2015 which led to the direction for recounting.
Adverting to the contention raised by the Presiding Officer, Booth No.73 the Tribunal observed:
^^;kfpdk esa ernku dsUnz Ø- 73 ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh xzke iapk;r Hkqtiqjkdyka rglhy cSjfl;k dks izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Ø-3 W. P. No.4745/2017
07 cuk;k x;k gSA U;kf;d fof/k vuqlkj izfr;kph Ø-07 dks lwpuk i= tkjh dj vkgqr fd;k x;k A izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Ø- 07 }kjk fnukad 07@04@2015 dks izLrqr ;kfpdk ds laca/k esa tcko izLrqr dj ys[k fd;k fd dk;kZy; fjVfuZax vkfQlj iapk;r [k.M cSjfl;k ds vkns'k Øekad 705 fnukad 20@02@2015 ls ernku ny Ø- 325 dk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA ernku 'kkafr iwoZd lEiUu gqvk rFkk erx.kuk lka; 06 cts ls fd;s tkus gsrq lwpuk vfHkdrkZvksa dks nh xbZA iap ,oa ljiap inksa ds fy;s erisVh esa Mkys x;s erksa dh x.kuk dk dk;Z lka; 06%30 cts izkjaHk gks ldk] erx.kuk dk dk;Z ernku dsUnz esa mifLFkr 09 vfHkdrkZvksa ds le{k izkjaHk fd;k x;kA ;s lHkh 09 ernku vfHkdrkZ wijh erx.kuk izfØ;k ds nkSjku dsUnz ij mifLFkr jgsA mlh chp vlkekftd rRoksa ftudh la[;k yxHkx 10 ls 15 Fkh os ernku dsUnz dh fxzy rksM+dj vUnj vk;s vkSj vHknzrkiwoZd O;ogkj vkSj xkyh xykSp djrs gq;s iqu% erx.kuk djus ds fy;s gaxkek djrs jgsA esjs }kjk ,sls yksxksa dks le>kbZl nsus dk iwjk iz;kl fd;k x;k fdUrq os bl dnz csdkcw Fks fd mUgsa dkcw esa ugha fd;k tk ldkA mifnz;ksa dh la[;k vf/kd gksus ls ernku dsUnz ds lqj{kkdehZ Hkh mUgsa dkcw djus esa lQy ugha gks ldsA minzoh rRoksa }kjk eri=ksa dh Nhuk NiVh dh xbZ ernku dsUnz ds ckgj Hkh cM+h la[;k esa yksx ekStwn FksA bl nkSjku ernku dsUnz dh fctyh Hkh can dj nh xbZA ernku ny ds lnL; ih&1 ih&3 }kjk lHkh eri=ksa dks nwljs dejs esa ys x;sA blh chp vkSj vf/kd la[;k esa yksx ernku dsUnz ds Hkhrj f[kM+dh dh jkM rksM+dj ernku ny ds lnL;ksa dks vUnj can dejs ls fudkydj er muls Nhu fy;s vkSj Nhus x;s eri=ksa dks ckgj f[kM+dh rd ys x;sA ogka ekStwn 02 iqfyl dehZ ,oa esjs }kjk eri=ksa dks cpkus dk iwjk iz;kl fd;k x;kA fdUrq bl chp yxHkx lHkh 4 W. P. No.4745/2017 eri= QkM+ fn;s x;s FksA bl minzo ds nkSjku gekjs }kjk pquko dh vU; lkexzh bZOgh,e e'khu ,oa pquko dk fjdkMZ fNik dj cpk fy;k x;kA mDRk ?kVukØe dh tkudkjh esjs }kjk fjVfuaZx vkfQlj dks nh xbZA^^ After dwelling on other evidence on record the Tribunal observed-
^^mHk;i{kksa ds lk{;] rdZ ,oa izdj.k esa layXu nLrkostksa dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa ;g fufoZokn gS fd erx.kuk ds le; Ik;kZIr fo|qr O;oLFkk ugha FkhA izdj.k esa ;g Hkh fufoZokn gS fd erx.kuk dsUnz Øekad 73 uhe[ksMh esa 10&15 yksxksa }kjk tcju ?kqldj eri= QkMs x;s ,oa ywVus ds iz;kl fd;k x;kA bl ckr dh iqf"V ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds }kjk fn;k x;k tcko ,oa Fkkuk izHkkjh }kjk fy[ks x;s i= ls gksrk gS ernku dsUnz Ø- 73 esa gqbZ ?kVuk ds laca/k esa izLrqr lh-Mh- ,oa QksVks ls Hkh bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gSA fd ernku dsUnz Øa- 73 esa minzo gqvk gS ,oa eri= QkM+s x;s gSA^^ These findings have been allowed to attain finality as the challenge to order dated 10.11.2015 vide W. P. No.19692/2015 has been withdrawn.
True it is that on recounting the margin increased to 53. However, startling fact came to be noted by the Tribunal that as on 26.02.2015 on the first counting total votes casted were found to be 1213; however on recounting on 16.11.2015 the total votes which were found to be casted were 978. Thus, there was a 5 W. P. No.4745/2017 difference of 235 votes.
The Tribunal then found following facts qua booth No.72 and 73 respectively on the basis of evidence.
As to Booth No.72, the Tribunal found:
^^ernku dsUnz Øekad 72 esa Mkys x;s dqy erksa dh la[;k 575 ,oa fof/kekU; erksa dh la[;k 550 rFkk [kkfjt erksa dh dqy la[;k 25 gSA ernku dsUnz Øekad 73 esa Mkys x;s dqy erksa dh la[;k 403 ,oa fof/kekU; erksa dh la[;k 373 rFkk [kfjt erksa dh dqy 30 ikbZ xbZ gSA ernku dsUnz Øekad 73 ds 'ks"k eri= th.kZ'kh.kZ fLFkfr esa ik;s x;s ftudh x.kuk dh tkuk laHko ugha gSA ernku dsUnz Øekad 73 esa mHk;i{k vfHkHkk"kd }kjk vkifRr izLrqr dh xbZ] ftlesa crk;k fd cgqr lkjs eri=ksa esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds lhy ,oa gLrk{kj ugha gS] ftlesa dqjeh ufc;kckbZ ds 07 eri=] dkS'kY;kckbZ xkSj ds 14 eri=] Jhefr d`".kk x;kizlkn xkSj ds 21 eri=] Jhefr xhrkckbZ iRuh tloarflag ds 22 eri= ,oa gYdhckbZ iRuh eqa'khyky dk 01 eri= rFkk fujLr eri= 03 ds i`"BHkkx ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds lhy ,oa gLrk{kj ugha ik;s x;sA^^ As to Booth No.73 the Tribunal found:
^^ernku dsUnz Øekad 73 ds 'ks"k eri= th.kZ'kh.kZ fLFkfr esa ik;s x;s ftudh x.kuk dh tkuk laHko ugha gSA ernku dsUnz Ø0 73 esa mHk;i{k vfHkHkk"kd }kjk vkifRr izLrqr dh xbZ ftlesa crk;k x;k fd cgqr lkjs eri=ksa esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds lhy ,oa gLrk{kj ugha gS] ftlesa dqjeh ufo;k ckbZ ds 07 eri=] dkS'kY;kckbZ xkSj ds 14 eri=] Jhefr d`".kk x;kizlkn xkSj ds 21 eri=] Jhefr xhrkckbZ iRuh tloarflag ds 22 eri= ,oa gYdhckbZ iRuh eq'a khyky dk 6 W. P. No.4745/2017 01 eri= rFkk fujLr eri= 03 i`"BHkkx esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds lhy ,oa gLrk{kj ugha ik;s x;sA^^ On recounting also the Tribunal found many votes in mutilated condition. It also found that the number of votes casted i.e., 1213 were found reduced to 978.
Consequently, it held (with 978 votes) that though the margin has increased to 53 votes, but found that there was malpractice as there was no free and fair election and the counting thereon. Which led the Tribunal declare the election as null and void. The Tribunal found ^^vr% eSa] bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk gwa fd iapk;r fuokZpu 2015 ds nkSjku gqbZ erx.kuk fnukad 26@02@2015 dks gq;h erx.kuk esa ;kfpdkdrkZ Jhefr xhrkckbZ dks 375 er ,oa Jhefr d`".kk xkSj dks 377 er izkIr gq;s gSa] ftlesa nksuksa ds izkIr eri=ksa esa ek= 02 dk varj gS ,oa iquZerx.kuk fnukad 16@11@2015 dks gq;h erx.kuk esa ;kfpdkdrkZ Jhefr xhrkckbZ dks 244 er ,oa Jhefr d`".kk xkSj dks 297 er izkIr gq;s gSa] ftlesa nksuksa ds izkIr eri=ksa esa 53 dk vUrj ik;k x;k gSA fnukad 26@02@2015 dks xzke iapk;r Hkqtiqjk dyka ds ernku dsUnz Øekad 72 ,oa ernku dsUnz Øekad 73 esa dqy Mkys x;s eri=ksa dh la[;k 1213 gS] tcfd fnukad 16-11-2015 dks gq;h iquZerx.kuk esa eri=ksa dh la[;k 978 ik;h x;h gSA bl izdkj nkuksa erx.kukvksa esa 235 eri=ksa dk varj gSA izdj.k esa ;kfpdk drkZ }kjk izLrqr iqfyl Fkkuk uthjkckn dk i= Øekad@vkj 104@15 fnukad 27-03- 2015 tks gseflag xkSj ds uke lacksf/kr fd;k x;k gS] esa 7 W. P. No.4745/2017 Hkh ernku dsUnz 73 ds eri= iqfy;k ds ikl feyus dk mYys[k gSA ftlls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd iapk;r fuokZpu ds nkSjku rRle; vfu;ferrk,a gq;h gSa rFkk mDr ernku dh lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh fu"i{krkiw.kZ rFkk fuokZpu fu;eksa ds vuqlkj lEikfnr ugha dh x;h gSaA eSa] jktho uanu JhokLro fofuZfnZ"V vf/kdkjh ,oa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ cSjfl;k ftyk Hkksiky izdj.k esa vk;s leLr rF;ksa@vfHkys[kksa @dFkuksa ,oa vU; nLrkostksa ds voyksdu mijkUr eSa] bl fu"d"kZ ij vkrk gWw fd] xzke iapk;r Hkqtiqjk dyka dk fuokZpu fu"i{krkiw.kZ ugha gksus ls fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% xzke iapk;r Hkqtiqjkdyka tuin iapk;r cSjfl;k ftyk Hkksiky ds ljiap in dk pquko fnukad 22@02@2015 dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djrk gWwA^^ No material is commended to belie the findings arrived by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary.
Rule 23 (1) of the Rules 1995 mandates that-
"(1)- At the conclusion of the enquiry the specified officer shall make an order-
(a)- dismissing the election petition; or
(b)- declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void; or
(c)- declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidate to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected."
It has been held in P. K. K. Shamsudeen v. K.A. M. Mapillai Mohindeen and others: AIR 1989 SC 8 W. P. No.4745/2017 640-
"13- Thus the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hind sight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or court should not order the recount of votes."
In the case at hand, there is ample evidence on record adverted to by the Tribunal to bring home finding that because of malpractice the entire election process got vitiated as could be allowed to sustain.
The impugned order when adjudged on these 9 W. P. No.4745/2017 principle and the given facts does not warrant any interference.
Furthermore, it is contended that the election petition suffered an inherent deficiency that the Security amount was not deposited with the Specified Officer alongwith the election petition. The impugned order reveals that the objection raised by the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Rules 1995 was dwelt upon by the Tribunal on 10.01.2017 and rejected the objection. The petitioner did not challenge the order which was in the nature of final order and allowed it to attain finality. The petitioner cannot now be allowed to rake up the issue under the garb of impugned order.
Another contention which deserves mention and the rejection at the outset is that since the Specified Officer did not frame the issues the entire order gets vitiated. Evidently, on 10.11.2015 on a finding that there exists circumstances which creates doubt as to fair and transparent counting, the Tribunal directed for recounting. The said order has been allowed to attain finality. It was in furtherance to said order Tribunal passed the final order declaring the election as null and void. It being not a case that the parties were not aware as to what was being tried. On the contrary both 10 W. P. No.4745/2017 the parties having led evidence, cannot now turn around and say that they are not aware as to the issue before the Tribunal.
Rule 11 of 1995 Rules envisages that subject to the provisions of the Rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the Specified Officer, as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits. Thus the trial has to "as nearly as may be" and not in accordance with CPC stricto sensu. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the Tribunal dwelt upon all the averments which cropped up for consideration after permitting the parties to lead evidence in support of respective averments.
The impugned order when tested on the anvil of above analysis cannot be faulted with as would warrant an indulgence.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Loretta