Bisakha Bai vs Ritu Bai and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), (for short `the SDO'') Saja, District Durg, in Case No. 10/A-89/09-10, whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bijagond, Block and Tahsil Saja, District Durg. After completion of election process, the respondent No. 1 was declared elected. The petitioner preferred an election petition u/s 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 did not possess the requisite qualification. After hearing the parties, the SDO, Saja passed the impugned order dismissing the election petition of the petitioner.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 30.06.2010, it is apparent that the SDO, Saja found that there were no signatures on each page of the election petition and the same was also not attested, as required under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short `the Rules, 1995''). Even after having sufficient opportunity to make good the default, nothing was done.

The Supreme Court, in K.K.Ramchandran Master v. M.V.Sreyamakumar & Others1, while considering the requirement of election petition under the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short `the Act, 1951''), held that u/s 83, it is required that the petition be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the procedure for verification of the pleadings. The provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 is same as provisions of section 83(1)(c) of the Act, 1951.

This Court, in Rekha Rupa Sahu (Smt.) v. Vineet Bafna & Others2, held that Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 makes a provision for contents of the petition wherein it is prescribed, inter alia, that the election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1995 provides that if the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 has not been complied with, the petition shall be dismissed by the Specified Officer provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Rule 5 and 8 of the Rules, 1995 reads as under:

Contents of the petition. - An election petition shall-

(a) contains a concise statement of all material facts on which the petitioner relies;

(b) set forth with sufficient particulars, the grounds on which the election is called in question;

(c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings.

Procedure on receiving petition.- If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers:

Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Since the mandatory requirement as stated above, was not fulfilled by the petitioner even after having sufficient opportunity. The election petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules, 1995.

In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. (See Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others3, Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil4).

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order asto costs.