Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumat Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 10 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 740 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SUMAT KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI RAMESH JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SECRETARY GRAM
PANCHAYAT LAKLAKA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRASHANT DUBEY-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RULER
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER/RETURNING OFFICER
ELECTION PANCHAYAT DAMOH M.P. GRAM
PANCHAYAT LAKLAKA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SPECIFIED OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER
(R EVEN UE) SUB DIVISION DAMOH DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JAMAN YADAV S/O SHRI DHANSINGH YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O LAKLAKA POST
PURA BAREGARH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MEGHRAJ SINGH LODHI S/O SHRI LAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O LAKLAKA POST
PURA BAREGARH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. NANEHEBHAI VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI
JAGANNATH VISHWAKARMA R/O LAKLAKA POST
PURA BAREGARH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/11/2023
6:00:18 PM
2
7. JUGRAJ SINGH LODHI S/O SHRI PRATAP SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O LAKLAKA POST
PURA BAREGARH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY KUMARI KAMLESH TAMRAKAR-PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENTS 1-3 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner Sumat Kumar Jain, who is returning candidate challenging the order dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure P/4) passed by S.D.O. (Revenue), Damoh, whereby objection (Annexure P/3) raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the election petition was not filed by the respondent-7/Jugraj Singh Lodhi in person and the requisite amount of Rs.500/- was not deposited along with the petition, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because on the date of filing of the petition on 16.08.2022, respondent-7 did not submit the copy of challan of Rs.500/- required under Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as "the Rules of 1995") and further due to non filing of the election petition by the respondent-7 himself as per Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 1995, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that previously also, objection raised by the petitioner was turned down by the S.D.O., therefore, he came before this Court by filing M.P.No.172/2023, which was disposed off with the direction to S.D.O. to decide the objections being raised by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/11/2023 6:00:18 PM 3 petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that inspite of the order passed by this Court on 16.01.2023, S.D.O. again by passing unreasoned and nonspeaking order dated 27.01.2023 has rejected the objection. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Tara Vs. Dabla alias Lalita 2002 (3) MPLJ 591; Sarla Tripathi Vs. Smt. Kaushilya Devi and others 2004 (2) JLJ 263 and Kana Mandal Vs. State of M.P. and others 2010 (1) MPLJ 468 and he submits that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned panel lawyer for the respondents 1-3/State supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the present case, election petition appears to have been filed on 16.08.2022 by the authorized counsel of the respondent-7/Jugraj Singh Lodhi and right side margin of the order-sheet dated 16.08.2022 shows that it was also signed by Jugraj Singh Lodhi, therefore, it can very well be inferred that the respondent-7/Jugraj Singh Lodhi was present on the date of filing of the election petition, therefore, objection raised by the petitioner regarding non compliance of Rule 3(1) of Rules of 1995 is liable to be rejected.
7. So far as the objection about non deposit of amount of Rs.500/- along with the election petition on 16.08.2022 is concerned, learned S.D.O. has in its order observed that because on 16.08.2022, the server was down, therefore, the amount of Rs.500/- could not be deposited by the respondent-7/Jugraj Singh Lodhi and thereafter on the next date being holiday, the challan of an amount of Rs.500/- was submitted on record on 18.08.2022.
8. In such circumstances, the aforesaid decisions (supra) of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/11/2023 6:00:18 PM 4 present case and are distinguishable on facts.
9. Resultantly, this miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE sh Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/11/2023 6:00:18 PM