Asha Devi Mahilange (Smt.) vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28-12-2006 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority (Election Petition), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa in Revenue Case No. 11/A89/21/04-05.

The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner (Smt. Asha Devi Mahilange) are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Misda, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa in the election held on 15-1- 2005. According to the birth certificate (Annexure P-l), the date of birth of the petitioner is 15-6-1983 and according to the identity card, issued by the Election Commission of India (Annexure P-2), as on 1-1-2003, the petitioner was 20 years old. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 (Smt. Geeta Bai) filed an election petition against the petitioner for declaration of her election on the post of Sarpanch as null and void and to declare the election petitioner as elected, on three counts, which reads as under:

�1� mRrjoknh dz- 1 us vius tUefrfFk 15&6&82 crk;k gS A tks >wBk ,oa vlR; gS A mRrjoknh dzekad 1 dh tUefrfFk 1&1&1986 gS bl izdkj mldh mez pquko frfFk esa 19 o"kZ 14 fnu gS A

�2� mRrjoknh dz- 1 us tUefrfFk >wBk is''k fd;k gS ftlls ljiap in ds fy, mldh vk;q lhek ds vUnj vk tk;s A

�3� N-x- iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj 21 o"kZ ls de vk;q dk izR;k''kh ljiap in gsrq ;ksX; ugh gS A

The petitioner filed her reply to the election petition and denied the allegations made in election petition. Apart from the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, six other candidates also participated in the election. The petitioner raised a specific objection that the election petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short ''the Rules, 1995'') as the other contesting candidates were not impleaded as party-respondents in the election petition. It was also stated in the objection that the election petitioner has also filed a petition on the similar facts and grounds, claiming similar relief, under the provisions of Section 36 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ''Adhiniyam, 1993''). Learned Sub Divisional Officer and Prescribed Authority after recording the evidence of the witnesses and examining the records, by impugned order dated 28-12-2006 (Annexure P-4) allowed the election petition. Thus, the petitioners has filed this petition.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no compliance of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1995, the petitioner was major when she contested the election of Sarpanch and the respondent No. 3 had also filed a petition u/s 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, seeking similar relief.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, per contra, would submit that the application u/s 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was filed by one Vinod Kumar Shukla on 13-7-2005, not by the respondent No. 3. Learned Counsel, relying on a decision of this Court in Surya Prakash v. Ramratan and Ors. 2009(1) M.P.H.T. 60 , would further submit that this petition has become infructuous as the bye-election for the post of Sarpanch was held on 19-6-2007 and Smt. Geeta Bai (present respondent No. 3) has been elected on the post of Sarpanch.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

It is apparent that even if the petitioner succeeds in this petition, the petitioner cannot join the office as Sarpanch. During pendency of this petition the election had already taken place and new Sarpanch has been elected, thus, the subsequent election cannot be set aside in this petition.

This Court, in Surya Prakash (supra), while considering the identical facts and question of law, relying on the decisions in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, , Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, , Indrajit Barua and Others Vs. Election Commission of India and Others, , Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and Others, , Avtar Singh Hit Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and Others, and Gurdeep Singh Dhillon v. Satpal and Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 616, held that since the election had already taken place, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be considered in this petition and no substantive relief of restoring the petitioner on the post of Sarpanch can be granted.

In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.