Provisions Of CPC To Be Followed In Trial Of Election Petitions U/S 122 Of MP Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, recently set aside the order passed by a Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), wherein the proceedings under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993 were not carried out in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that pursuant to Rule 11 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions,...
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, recently set aside the order passed by a Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), wherein the proceedings under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993 were not carried out in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that pursuant to Rule 11 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, the trial with respect to an election petition has to be conducted as per the CPC.
"After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it appears that the procedure as laid down under Rule 11 of Rules of 1995 has not been followed as no issues have been framed and the parties have not been allowed to adduce their evidences. Thus, the entire proceedings stands vitiated. The procedure as laid down under the provisions of the CPC for trying the suit is to be followed in cases where election petitions are tried under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993."
The respondent had filed an election petition before the SDO against the petitioner, who was the returning candidate in local body elections. The main grievance of the petitioner was that the SDO had passed the impugned order without framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court.
The petitioner submitted before the court that as per the provisions under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995, the authority should have proceeded in the matter as per the provisions under CPC.
Per contra, the respondents submitted that the impugned order was passed only after affording equal opportunity to the parties. However, it was conceded that considering the case laws cited by the petitioner, the matter ought to be sent back to the SDO to hear the election petition afresh in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the court concurred with the arguments put forth by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the matter was sent back to the SDO.
The court further directed that the matter shall proceed from the stage of framing of issues on the basis of the pleadings which were put forth by the parties in the election petition as well as in the reply.
Mr. D.S. Raghuvanshi with Mr. Saurav Singh Tomar - Counsels for the Petitioner
Mr. R.D. Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sangam Jain for the Respondents
Mr. R.B.S. Tomar for the Caveator
Title - RASHMI vs. BHARTI and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 16