Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhilesh Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2014
W.P. No.20010/2014
20.12.2014
Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Dy. Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Siddharth Seth, learned Counsel for the State Election Commission.
Heard counsel for the parties.
This petition filed as Public Interest Litigation challenges the order issued by the State Election Commission dated 15.12.2014 notifying the elections for the concerned Panchayat.
Since the election programme has already commenced in terms of the impugned order, in view of the Constitutional bar under Article 243-O, it is not open for this Court to entertain this petition, that too on the ground which can be agitated by the aggrieved persons by filing election dispute as provided under the Rule 21(1)(d)
(iv) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. That provision enables the aggrieved person to challenge the election of the returned candidates on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or Rules or Orders made thereunder.
In the present case, the argument is that the time frame specified in the impugned notification is not in conformity with Section 30 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
In the first place, the elections of Panchayat are governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Rules, 1995 and M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. These enactments are self- contained code. The ground urged by the petitioner cannot be countenanced because the same is founded on Central enactment of 1951. The elections in question are not conducted under the Central enactment, but under the State enactment. No provision in the Constitution or State enactment has been brought to our notice to suggest that the time frame provided in the impugned notification is not in conformity with the said provisions. Nor any provision in the State enactment is pointed out that in absence of express provision in the State enactment the time frame specified in Section 30 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 must be followed. Thus, there is no substance in the argument that the notification dated 15.12.2014 is in conflict with or repugnant to any of the governing statutory provision.
Accordingly, this petition fails, the same is dismissed.
It is made clear that the dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to avail other remedy of election dispute on the grounds as may be permissible in law.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Sanjay Yadav)
Chief Justice Judge
snb/-