Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Kumar Singore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 19 September, 2013
W.P. No. 7155 Of 2013
19.9.2013
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri V.P. Pandey, learned Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Heard.
I.A. No. 12218/2013, an application for urgent hearing is taken up. With the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter is heard finally.
The solitary issue which crops up for consideration is as to whether the Sub Divisional Officer, cum Prescribed Authority under Section 122 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 could entertain a belated election petition by condoning the delay.
Relevant facts briefly are that in an election of Panch of Ward No. 4 of Gram Panchayat Jaidepur the petitioner was declared elected and election certificate was issued on 3.2.2010 in pursuance to declaration of result of election held on 1.2.2010. Respondent No. 5 also contested the election but lost to the petitioner.
Being aggrieved respondent No. 5 preferred an election petition which was filed on 12.4.2010 along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The prescribed authority while condoning the delay entertained the election petition and subsequently by impugned order dated 30.3.2013 allowed the election petition and declared the election of Ward No. 4 as null and void with a direction to Presiding Officer.
Section 122 of Adhiniyam, 1993 makes a provision regarding election petition. It stipulates that an election under 1993 Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner.
Subsection (2) of Section 122 stipulates that "(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."
There is no provision for condonation of delay in case an election petition is filed beyond the period of limitation. Since the statute has not conferred any power on the specified officer trying the election petition to condone the delay, it is beyond his authority to entertain an election petition which is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. (For an authority as to proposition that the specified authority does not have the power to condone delay in an election petition tried under Section 122 of 1993 Adhiniyam, please see Kishan Singh v. Harveer Singh, 1998 (1) MPWN 83, Kalka Prasad v. Ramji Lal and others : 2002 (3) MPLJ 121 and Smt. Mumbi Bai v. State of M.P. and others : 2012 (2) MPHT 305).
In the case at hand, evident it is from record that election of Gram Panchayat Jaidepur was notified on 1.2.2010 and election petition which ought to have been filed within thirty days from the date of notification as filed on 12.4.2010 along with an application for condonation of delay. That being the position it was beyond the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority to have entertained a belated election election petition under Section 122 of Adhiniyam 1993 by condoning the delay.
In view whereof the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority is not tenable in the eyes of law as would warrant a stamp of approval. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
In the result petition is allowed. There shall be no costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi