Anju Singh W/o Shri Shiv Singh vs Gauri W/o Shri Naresh

Vide order dated 23.03.2017 in SBCWP No.3053/2017 a reference was made to the Larger Bench as under:- "The issue in the petition is as to whether an election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter ''the Act of 1994'') read with Rule 81 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter ''the Rules of 1994'') filed by an Advocate on the strength of his vakalatnama conferring authorization to present it, in law is a valid presentation or not."

The said reference has been answered on 20.04.2017 as under:- "8. We answer the reference as under:- An election petition presented by a Lawyer on the strength of a Vakalatnama would be deemed to have been duly presented if the language of the Vakalatnama expressly records that the Lawyer is authorised to present the election petition. It would then be a question of fact to be determined by the Tribunal keeping in view the language of the Vakalatnama. If the language of the Vakalatnama expressly records that the Lawyer is authorised to present the election petition, it would be a case of valid presentation of the election petition."

In the context of the answer to the reference by the Division Bench as recorded herein above it has to be considered on the facts on record as to whether the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter ''election petitioner'') had authorised his counsel by the ''Vakalatnama'' signed to present the election petition.

For this the terms of the engagement/ Vakalatnama of the election petitioner to his counsel have to be considered.

A certified copy of the Vakalatnama signed by the election petitioner authorizing his counsel has been placed on record in Court during in the hearing of the petition. It is taken on record. There is no dispute as to the said Vakalatnama.

The Vakalatnama aforesaid refers to the subject in respect of which the advocate was authorised by the election petitioner. It reads as under:- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

Thereafter the Vakalatnama proceeds to authorize the advocate, as under:-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

The recitations in the aforesaid Vakaltnama thus clearly authorizes the advocate to present the election petition. Further in any event a Vakaltnama is in the nature of contract of agency of the client to his advocate. As in other contracts aside of express conditions those by necessary implications have to read into it. Besides, when the Vakalatnama is executed by a client authorizing his advocate in respect of a case specifically named, it has to necessarily and inevitably concluded that the terms thereof relate to such a case albeit the nature of the case may not be restated in the body of the Vakalatnama. In the instant case from the Vakalatnama on record it is evident that the election petitioner authorised his advocate to not only plead and content the election petition but also present it before the appropriate Court. This satisfied the requirement of the explanation to Rule 81(1) of the Rules of 1994 in the election petition being presented by either the election petitioner in person or by a person authorised in writing to present it. Besides, the election petitioner in the case at hand also appears to have accompanied his advocate when the election petition was presented by him in Court.

Consequently, I find neither any perversity nor patent illegality nor error of jurisdiction in the impugned order dated 08.02.2017. The writ petition is without force and hence dismissed.

Write petition dismissed.