Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramila Bai W/O Surendra Singh, ... vs Sub-Divisional Officer And Ors. on 8 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)MPLJ209, 1999 A I H C 4393, (1999) 2 MPLJ 209
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Dipak Misra
ORDER
1. These L.P.A. Nos. 5 and 8 both of 1999 are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the parties as both arise from the same judgment dated 17-12-1998 passed in W.P. No. 4984/98 and 4091/97. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by one and common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri A. S. Jha and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri R. K. Shrivastava. He states that he also represent respondent No. 3 though he has not filed the power.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two points. Firstly, that the election petition filed against the declaration of the result was barred by time as under Section 122(2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 the limitation provided is "thirty days", and, secondly, the cost awarded in writ petition by the learned Single Judge is not only excessive but arbitrary.
4. So far as first point is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after scrutiny of nomination papers only his candidature survived and under Rule 47 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 he was declared elected in Form 24. Subsequently, the election was countermanded and that order of countermanding of election was set aside by this Court in a writ petition. So far as the question of countermanding of election is concerned it has no bearing to the controversy involved here. The controversy is whether the election petition was within time or not. Section 122 is extracted below :
"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 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue);
(ii) in case of Janapad 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 enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed."
In sub-section (2) it has been provided that no such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. Rule 47 does not relate to notification of election. It relates only to declaration of a candidate elected unopposed in Form 24. The notification of the result of the election is provided under Rule 90 which provides the manner of notifying election and the provision is extracted below :
"90. Manner of notifying election. - The Commission shall notify or cause to be notified -
(a) every election of a Panch and Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, by affixing a notice in Form 26-A on the notice board in the office of the Gram Panchayat concerned and in the office of the Janpad Panchayat within such Gram Panchayat is situate;
(b) every election of a member of a Janpad Panchayat, by affixing a notice in Form 26-B on the notice board in the office of the Janpad Panchayat concerned and in the office of the District Election Officer, and
(c) every election of a member of a Zila Panchayat, by affixing a notice in Form 26-C on the notice board in the office of the Zila Panchayat and in the office of the District Election Officer."
5. Notification is made in Form 26-A so far as the election of the Panch and Sarpanch is concerned. The present election related to Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha. The parties are not at variance that the election petition was within time if reckoned from the date of notification. The legal position is that time is to be reckoned from the date of notification of election and not from the date of result of the unopposed candidate under Rule 47 in Form 24. In view of this the first submission made on behalf of the appellant does not survive.
6. The second submission is regarding cost. So far as the question of awarding of cost Rs. 20,000/- is concerned learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cost so imposed may be waved as it is in the discretion of the Court and the discretion may be exercised in favour of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant was not at all at fault when the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination papers of the other candidates. It is obvious that the appellant herself was not held guilty for wrong rejection of the nomination paper of other candidates. No doubt the awarding of the cost is within the discretion of the Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider to waive the costs as awarded by this Court.
7. In view of above appeals are partly allowed so far as they relate to imposition of the costs. We direct that in these cases parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.