Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajababu Sonkar vs Shambhu Prasad Sonkar on 6 October, 2017
1 W.P. No. 2957/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE MS.VANDANA KASREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2957/2017
Rajababu Sonkar
Vs.
Shambhu Prasad Sonkar & Others
Shri V.S. Shroti, learned senior counsel with
Shri Siddharth Seth, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned senior counsel with
Shri V.P. Nema, learned counsel for respondent
No. 1 on caveat.
ORDER
(06.10.2017) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by respondent No. 4 thereby allowing the Election Petition filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside the election of the petitioner on the post of Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi, 2 W.P. No. 2957/2017 Jabalpur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Election of the Mandi Samiti was scheduled in November-December, 2012. The petitioner has participated in the said election on 29.11.2012. Thereafter, the election of the Mandi Samiti was held and the petitioner was elected as member of the Agriculture representative and, thereafter, he was elected as Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jabalpur. Against the election of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 has filed an election petition under Section 66-A of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') as well as the Rule 84-A of the Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') before respondent No. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed his written statement on 16.04.2013 and denied the claim of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 4, thereafter, framed 5 issues on 01.10.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for framing the additional issues and on the 3 W.P. No. 2957/2017 request of the petitioner, issue No. 6 as an additional issue has been framed. Respondent No. 2 who was the Returning Officer has also filed the written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. stating that the election petition is not presented according to Sub-Rule 4 of Rules 84-A. Consequently, the election petition does not disclose the cause of action according to Sub-Rule 2 of Rules 84-A. The election petition does not involves the material facts and sufficient particulars. Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 03.09.2013 has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petiton No. 21794//2013 before this Court.
3. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No. 1 has examined some of the witnesses. The writ petition, thereafter, was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2016. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence. On 13.01.2015, the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner. On that date counsel for the 4 W.P. No. 2957/2017 election petitioner was absent and the counsel for the petitioner had appeared after some delay, therefore, the witnesses could not be examined and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 10.02.2015. However, as on 10.02.2015, the lawyers were abstained from the working, therefore, the case was fixed for evidence on 03.03.2015. On 03.03.2015, the counsel for the election petitioner was present before respondent No. 1 but counsel for the petitioner was not appeared when the case was called for recording the statement. Therefore, on that date, respondent No. 4 has closed the right of the petitioner for examination of his witnesses and the case was fixed for argument on 24.03.2015. On 24.03.2015, the petitioner filed an application for recording the statement of their witnesses and petitioner himself. This application was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2015. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for reviewing of the order dated 28.04.2015, however, this application was also rejected by the tribunal on the same day. Thereafter, 5 W.P. No. 2957/2017 respondent No. 4 heard the arguments of the parties on 25.01.2017 & 15.02.2017 and the case was reserved for orders. The order was declared on 20.02.2017. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
4. Respondent No. 1 has filed the election petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner does not come within the definition of agriculturist as defined under Section 2(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam. It has been stated that the agriculture is not the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and he engaged in other business activities also. The tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties has held that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'agriculturist' and has also stated that the petitioner has suppressed material information in the nomination form that he does not come within the definition of agriculturist as given under Section 2(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam.
5. The respondent No. 1 filed reply to the said writ petition and in the said reply, the respondent has stated 6 W.P. No. 2957/2017 that the proper opportunity was given by the tribunal to the petitioner for leading the evidence. However, as the petitioner with an intention to delay the proceedings has sought adjournment for recording the evidence. Thus, the application has been rightly rejected by the tribunal for permitting the petitioner to lead the evidence. It has further been submitted that the order by which the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence was closed was not challenged before any higher forum and the review application was also filed after more than 1 year. It has further been submitted that there was sufficient substantial evidence before the tribunal to come to the conclusion that the present petitioner is not fully depend on the income from the agriculture and have income from other sources like transport business, liquor shop etc. It has further been submitted that in the election petition the strict provision of Civil Procedure Code are not required to be followed.
6. The respondent No. 2 to 4 have also filed their reply and in the reply the respondents have stated that the 7 W.P. No. 2957/2017 Commissioner after considering the entire records of the election petition and recording the statements of witnesses has found that the petitioner is not an agriculturist because he is involved in various other business activities and while contesting the election of member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, he had concealed the said information. The Commissioner has framed as many as 6 issues. From the statements of Deputy Manager of SBI, Manager of Tata Motors and RTO, Jabalpur it was revealed that the petitioner have 8 vehicles and same are using by the petitioner as school bus. From the statement of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Jabalpur it was revealed that earlier the petitioner was having liquor contract and he was required to pay excise duty of Rs. 18,27,986/-. Hence, as the petitioner is involved in various business activities, therefore, he does not come under the definition of agriculturist. Thus, there was sufficient grounds to declare the election of the petitioner as void ab initio.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of 8 W.P. No. 2957/2017 the petitioner argues that the tribunal has error in not dismissing the election petition on the ground that (1) It does not disclose a cause of action; (2) It does not state material facts and sufficient particulars as required under Rule 84-A (4) of the Rules of 1997 and (3) The petition is not accompanied by a deposit of five hundred rupees as costs of petition as required under Rule 84-A(3) & (7) of the Rules of 1997. He further argues that the findings recorded by the tribunal that the petitioner was not an agriculturist is perverse, being based on no evidence. It has further been argued that the tribunal has not afforded an opportunity of leading the evidence to the petitioner and the preliminary legal issues have framed by the tribunal on 03.02.2017 were not decided and final order was passed. He further argues that as per Rule 84-A of the Rules provides that the filing of the election petition. The Sub Rule 4 provides that the petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts, on which the petition relies and set forth with sufficient particulars, the ground or 9 W.P. No. 2957/2017 grounds, on which the election is called in question. On the basis of the said Sub Rule, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petition does not contained the material facts as given under Rule 84-A of the Rules. It has only been stated that the petitioner is not an agriculturist, but regarding that no material particulars have been stated in para 6 of the election petition, therefore, the election petition was liable to be dismissed on the said grounds itself. For the said purposes he relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ramsukh Vs. Dinesh Agarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Vs. Surtaj Singh, 2009 (4) M.P.L.J 292.
8. As per the judgment passed in the case of Ramsukh (supra) he submits that all the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and omission of even a single material fact would amount to disobedience to the mandate 10 W.P. No. 2957/2017 of Section 84-A of the Adhiniyam and an election petition can be and must be dismissed if suffers from any such vice.
9. Learned senior counsel has further argues that while presenting the said election petition, the provisions of Rules 84-A(1)(3) & (7) of Nirvachan Niyam, 1997 have not been followed. The election petition was not accompanied by a deposit of five hundred rupees as security for the purpose of petition. The petitioner has filed only a copy of challan in respect of deposit made by him in the Bank. He submits that the filling of challan copy is not a deposit within the meaning of Rule 84-A(1) which is mandatory for the said purpose. He relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Vs. State of M.P., 2015(2)MPLJ 166. He further submits that the Section 11-B(1) of the Adhiniyam deals with the qualifications to vote and to be a representative of agriculturist. According to the said Section, he submits that a person whose name is entered as Bhoomiswami in the village land record and who ordinarily resides in the 11 W.P. No. 2957/2017 market area is qualified for casting his votes and to be representative of the agriculturist.
10. The Section 11-B (2) provides that no person shall be qualified to be elected as representative of agriculturist unless, his name is included in the list of voters of the market area and he is an agriculturist. On the basis of these Sections, he argues that the respondent No. 1 has not filed any documents to show that his name is not included in the land records of the land as Bhoomiswami and that his name does not appear in the voter list of the market area and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not qualified to be a voter and to be a representative of agriculturist.
11. Learned senior counsel further argues that the tribunal has not given the proper opportunity to the petitioner to lead the evidence. He submits that the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 13.01.2015, on that date, the respondents advocate was absent. The matter was then list for hearing on 10.02.2015, on that date, as the 12 W.P. No. 2957/2017 lawyers were abstained from the working, the case was, therefore, fixed on 24.03.2015. In the meanwhile, the tribunal vide order dated 03.03.2015 has closed the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application on 24.03.2015 for recalling the order dated 03.03.2015. However, that application was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for review. The said application was also dismissed and the final order was passed on 15.02.2017. Thus, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead the evidence. He further argues that the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by respondent No. 4 is contrary to the directions issued by this Court. He submits that the petitioner has field an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on 23.07.2013. The said application was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2013. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has field a Writ Petition No. 21794/2013 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2016 with a direction to 13 W.P. No. 2957/2017 the petitioner that the objections which is taken by the petitioner in the petition it be given by him in reply of the election petition and same shall be decided by the competent authority thereafter. He submits that in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the issues were framed on 03.02.2017. However, the some issues were not decided and the tribunal has passed the final order on 15.02.2017. In light of the aforesaid, learned senior counsel argues that the order passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order passed by the tribunal. He argues that there is no precise definition of material facts. He submits that the strict provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable in the case of election petition. He further argues that the evidence is not required to be pleaded in the election petition. He submits that as per Section 11-B of the Adhiniyam, a Chairman of the Mandi can be elected only if he is an agriculturist as 14 W.P. No. 2957/2017 defined under Section 2(b) of the Adhiniyam and according to this definition, agriculturist means a person whose source of livelihood is wholly depend on agriculture produce. He submits that in the present case, the petitioner is engage in other business activities also like transport and liquor business, therefore, he does not come within the definition of agriculturist. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly allowed the election petition filed by respondent No. 1. He relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Maheshkumar Chhotelal Gour Vs. Additional Collector, Hoshangabad and another, 1988 MPLJ 6. The Apex Court in the case of Virender Nath Gautam Vs. Satpal Singh and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 617 as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Pathania Vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal decided on January 24, 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4080 of 2014. He also relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Michael B. Fernandes Vs. C.K. Jaffer Sharief and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 521. 15 W.P. No. 2957/2017
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. In the present case the election for Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jabalpur was held in November-December, 2012. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 has contested the election for the office of Chairman of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jabalpur. The result of the said election was declared on 21.12.2012 and in the said election, the petitioner was declared elected as Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jabalpur. The election of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing an election petition on the ground that the petitioner is not an agriculturist as defined under Section 2(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam, as he is not wholly depended on the agriculture produce. Secondly, on the ground that the returning officer has illegally allowed his nomination and there is a recovery from bank. The petitioner has filed the written statement of the said election petition stating that the petition does not contained the material facts and 16 W.P. No. 2957/2017 sufficient particulars as given under Section 84-A of the Act. It has further been stated that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is Bhoomiswami of Village Saliwara in Jabalpur and is, therefore, voter for representative of agriculturist and so far as, businesses of transport is concerned, it has stated that the same is done by his brother. The election tribunal, thereafter, proceeded with the election petition and allowed the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside the election of the petitioner to the office of Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jabalpur, on the ground that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'agriculturist' as defined under Section 2(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam and he has suppressed the material information in the nomination form. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the election petition does not contained the material facts and sufficient particulars as required under Rule 84-A (4) of the Rules of 1997. The 17 W.P. No. 2957/2017 tribunal has failed to consider that the election petition also does not disclose a cause of action and is not accompanied by a deposit of five hundred rupees as costs of the petition. The order has also been challenged on the ground that the opportunity of hearing to lead the evidence was not given to the petitioner.
15. The Learned Govt. Advocate produced the original record before this Court.
16. From perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the said does not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Adhiniyam. The tribunal vide roder dated 03.09.2013 has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 21794/2013 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2016 with an opportunity to the petitioner to raise the objections of the petitioner in the reply of the election petition and which 18 W.P. No. 2957/2017 shall be decided by the competent authority. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the tribunal has framed the issues vide order dated 03.02.2017.
**03-02-2017 izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fnukad 25-01-2017 dks izdj.k vkns'k gsrq fu;r fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq vkns'k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ fuEu fcUnqvksa ij lquokbZ dh tkuk vko';d izrhr gksrk gS%& ¼1½ ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls izfroknh Ø- 3 ds fuokZpu ds laca/k esa nLrkost ;kfu pquko dk;ZØe dh vf/klwpuk @ xtV uksfVfQds'ku vkfn izLrqr ugha fd, x,A ¼2½ ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls izfroknh Ø- 3 ds d`f"k vk; ij vkfJr u gksus laca/kh nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd, x, vkSj u gh lk{;
djk;s x;sA ¼3½ ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk viuk uke ernkrk lwph esa ntZ gksus ;k vH;FkhZ gksus lac/a kh izek.k izLrqr ugha fd, x,A vr% fcUnqvksa ij lquokbZ gsrq mHk; i{kksa dks vkgwr fd;k tk;sA 08-02-2017 vk;qDr tcyiqj laHkkx** 19 W.P. No. 2957/2017
17. In the said order, it has further been stated that these issues will be decided before passing the final order. However, the tribunal without deciding these issued has straight away passed the final order on 15.02.2017.
18. From perusal of the order sheets, it also reveals that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead the evidence. The matter was listed for recording the petitioner's evidence from 30.01.2015 to 28.04.2015. These proceedings are reproduced as under:-
^^13-01-2015 ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk vuqifLFkrA mRrjoknh Ø- 4 ds vf/koDrk Hkh foyac ls mifLFkrA izdj.k mRrjoknh ds lk{; gsrq fu;r gSA mRrjoknh ds foyac ls mifLFkr gksus ds dkj.k lk{; ugha fy;s tk ldsA mRrjoknh vf/koDrk dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k fd vkxkeh lquokbZ frfFk esa lk{; lfgr fu/kkZfjr le; esa mifLFkr gksaA ;kfpdkdrkZ dks mifLFkr gsrq vafre volj fn;k tkrk gSA izdj.k mRrjoknh ds lk{; gsrqA 10-02-2015 le; 11-00 cts dfe'uj tcyiqj laHkkx 20 W.P. No. 2957/2017 10-02-2015 ftyk vf/koDrk la?k dh lwpuk vuqlkj vf/koDrkx.kksa ds U;k;ky;hu dk;Z ls fojr jgus ds dkj.k izdj.k c<+k;k x;kA 03-03-2015 vkns'kkuqlkj 03-03-2015 ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk mifLFkrA mRrjoknh Øekad 4 ds vf/koDrk vuqifLFkrA iwoZ is'kh fnukad 13-01-2015 dks Hkh mRrjoknh ds vf/koDrk foyac ls mifLFkr gq, FksA izdj.k mRrjoknh ds lk{; gsrq fu;r gSA mRrjoknh Øekad 4 dh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k rdZ gsrqA 24-03-2015 le; 12-00 cts dfe'uj tcyiqj laHkkx 24-03-2015 ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk mifLFkrA mRrjoknh Øekad 3 ds vf/koDrk mifLFkrA izdj.k esa fnukad 09-12-2014] 13-02-2015 ,oa 03-03-2015 dh vkns'k if=dk esa =qfVo'k mRrjoknh Øekad 3 ds LFkku ij mRrjoknh Øekad 4 dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vr% mijksDr vkns'k if=dk esa mRrjoknh Øekad 4 ds LFkku ij mRRkjoknh Øekad 3 la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k rdZ gsrq fu;r gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ vf/koDrk rdZ gsrq rS;kj gS fdUrq mRrjoknh Øekad 3 ds vf/koDrk }kjk muds 21 W.P. No. 2957/2017 lk{; fjdkMZ fd;s tkus ,oa lk{; dk volj lekfIr vkns'k jhdky djus ckor~ vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA ftldh izfr ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk }kjk izkIr dh xbZA izdj.k mijksDr vkosnu ds tokc gsrqA 07-04-2015 le; 12-00 cts dfe'uj tcyiqj laHkkx 07-04-2015 ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk mifLFkrA mRrjoknh Øekad 3 ds vf/koDrk mifLFkrA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk }kjk tokc u izLrqr djrs gq, rdZ lqus tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA mHk; i{k vf/koDrk ds vafre rdZ lqus x;sA izdj.k vkns'kkFkZA 28-04-2015 dfe'uj tcyiqj laHkkx 28-04-2015 ;kfpdkdrkZ ,oa mRrjoknh Ø- 3 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk mifLFkrA muds rdZ lqus x;sA mRRkjoknh Øekad&3 ds vf/koDrk }kjk lk{; djk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA izdj.k fnukad 13-01-2015 dks mRrjoknh Ø- 3 ds lk{; gsrq fu;r Fkk] ijUrq mRrjoknh Ø- 3 ds vf/koDrk ds foyac ls mifLFkr gksus ds dkj.k lk{; ugha fy, tk ldsA fnukad 13-
01-2015 dks mRrjoknh Ø- 3 ds vf/koDrk dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk vkxkeh lquokbZ frfFk dks lk{; lfgr mifLFkr gksa vkSj izdj.k fnukad 10-02-2015 ds fy, fu;r fd;k x;kA 22 W.P. No. 2957/2017 fnukad 10-02-2015 dks ftyk vf/koDrk la?k ds vkOgku ij vf/koDrkx.kksa ds U;k;ky;hu dk;Z ls fojr jgus ds dkj.k izdj.k fnukad 03-03-2015 ds fy, fu;r fd;k x;kA fnukad 03-03-2015 dks mRrjoknh Ø-3 ds vf/koDrk dh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k lk{; vafdr ugha djk;s tk lds vkSj lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k FkkA fnukad 24-03-2015 dks mRrjoknh Ø- 3 ds vf/koDrk }kjk vkosnu i= izLrqr dj iqu% lk{; dks volj iznku fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA mDr vkosnu dh izfr ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk dks iznku dh xbZA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk }kjk mDr vkosnu i= ij tokc izLrqr u dj izdj.k esa rdZ izLrqr djus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA pwafd mRrjoknh Ø-3 dks iwoZ esa lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq i;kZIr le; fn;k tk pqdk gS vkSj muds }kjk lk{; izLrqr ugha fd, x,] vr% mudk lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA 2& mHk;i{k ds vf/koDrkvksa ds vafre rdZ lqus x;s vkSj izdj.k dk lexz ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA mRrjoknh Ø- 3 }kjk ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky;] tcyiqj esa fjV fiVh'ku nk;j dh xbZ gSA fjV fiVh'ku Ø- 14306@2014 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 16-09- 2014 dks vkns'k ikfjr dj izdj.k esa vafre vkns'k ikfjr ugha djrs ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSaA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;y; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 16-09-2014 ds ifjikyu esa bl izdj.k esa vafre vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA loZlacaf/kr lwfpr gksaA dfe'uj tcyiqj laHkkx^^ 23 W.P. No. 2957/2017
19. From perusal of the order sheet dated 30.01.2015, it reveals that the counsel for respondent No. 1 was not present on that date and the counsel for the petitioner was present after some delay and, therefore, the matter was adjourned for 10.02.2015. On 10.02.2015 as the lawyers were abstained from the work, therefore, the case was adjourned and was listed on 03.03.2015. On 03.03.2015, the tribunal has closed the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on 24.03.2015. On that date, the petitioner has filed an application for recalling the order dated 03.03.2015 and permit him to record the evidence. The case was fixed on 07.04.2015 for passing the orders on the said application. However, the tribunal instead of deciding the said application proceeded to pass the order and fixed the case on 28.04.2015. On 28.04.2015, the tribunal has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for producing the evidence. However, as there was an interim order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition 24 W.P. No. 2957/2017 No. 14306/2014, therefore, no final order was passed by the tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for reviewing the order dated 28.04.2015. However, the said review application was also dismissed on 07.12.2016.
20. Thus, from perusal of these order sheets, it reveals that the tribunal has not given the proper opportunity to the petitioner to lead the evidence and has closed the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence as well as has not passed the order as per the direction issued by this Court. In light of the aforesaid, instead of deciding the matter on merits, I deem it proper to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh after giving proper opportunity to the parties for leading the evidence.
21. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.02.2017 passed by respondent No. 4 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 4 to decide the election 25 W.P. No. 2957/2017 petition afresh filed by respondent No. 1 after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. However, looking to the controversy involved in the matter, the tribunal is directed to decide the election petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
22. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 26.10.2017.
(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar) Judge ashish