Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 38]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashok Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2017

                          WA-169-2017
          (ASHOK KUMAR PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


01-03-2017
Shri Jai Shukla for the appellant.
Shri S.P. Mishra for respondent No.3 on advance notice.

Seeking exception to order-dated 13.2.2017 passed by the learned writ Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner, this appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Respondent No.3 Raghvendra Tiwari, a candidate who contested the election, filed the election petition challenging the election of appellant/petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in question under section 122, of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam alongwith the Rules prescribed namely the MP Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practice and disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1995’]. After receipt of notice from the Election Tribunal, petitioner/appellant raised an objection under Rule 3(2), of the Rules of 1995, which contemplates that ‘every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition’. When this petition was rejected by the Election Tribunal, appellant/petitioner visited this Court in W.P.No.6184/2016, and it was the case of the appellant/petitioner that his grievance was not properly explained. The learned writ Court on 19.7.2016 rejected this prayer and challenging this rejection a writ appeal was filed being W.A. No.504/2016; and, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court on 17.8.2016, by a detailed order passed, remanded the matter back to the Election Tribunal for reconsideration of the objection in accordance with law. After reconsideration, the Election Tribunal again passed a detailed order as is evident from the documents available on record and dismissed the objection by observing that the provisions of Rule 3(2) have not been violated. Annexure P/1 dated 2.12.2016 is the detailed order in this regard passed by the Election Tribunal, referring to filing of the earlier writ petition before this Court being W.P. No.6184/2016; the order passed in W.A. No.504/2016 on 17.8.2016; and, after evaluating the original records, recorded a categorical finding, infact a finding of fact, to say that the requirement of Rule 3(2) has been complied with. Again challenging this finding, the appellant/petitioner filed writ petition and the writ Court finding that the Election Tribunal has examined the issue and has found there to be compliance of section 3(2), dismissed the writ petition and challenging the same this writ appeal has been filed. Having heard Shri Jai Shukla – learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, at length, we find that a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the election petition has been decided not only by the Election Tribunal, but also by the writ Court finding there to be compliance of section 3(2) in as much as copies as required under the Rules are filed and they are duly attested as ‘true copy’ by the authorized person. This is a finding of fact recorded concurrently by the Election Tribunal and the learned writ Court, and at this stage indulgence into the matter is not called for, once the matter was reexamined by the Tribunal and the writ Court after remand by this Court in W.A. No.504/2016. That being so, we see no reason to make any indulgence in the matter.

The Election Tribunal may proceed with the trial of the election dispute, determine it in accordance with law and thereafter in case, after final decision is rendered by the Tribunal, if the appellant/petitioner has any grievance, he may raise action in accordance with law. At that stage liberty would be available to the appellant/petitioner to raise such grounds as are canvassed in this appeal again at the time of challenging the final order of the Election Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty to the appellant, for the present finding no indulgence to be made in the matter, we dismiss this appeal. 

  (RAJENDRA MENON)                      (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE                         JUDGE




aks