Sandhya Bai vs The Prescribed Authority and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 07-03-2011 (Annexure P-1) by which the Prescribed Authority rejected the election petition submitted by the petitioner, the contesting candidate at preliminary stage. The petitioner challenged election of returned candidate-respondent no. 2 on many grounds.

In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner had two contesting persons i.e. respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3. The returned candidate raised an objection that all the candidates who submitted their nomination papers they have not added as party in the election petition, hence, the petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of the parties. The Prescribed Authority upheld the objection and rejected the election petition.

Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as ''''the Rules of 1995''''] prescribes parties to the petition, which is as under:-

Parties to the petition.-Where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected he shall join as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates at the election.

From the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that for the purpose of declaration of election of a returned candidate as null and void, the relevant condition is that the petitioner be declared as returned candidate and all the contesting candidates be joined as parties. In the election of Sarpanch, there were three candidates. It is clear from the declaration of result of election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pureniya-29, District Vidisha (Annexure P-2) that the petitioner has made a returned candidate and another candidate, namely, Niranjan Bai as parties. Hence, it cannot be said that the contesting candidates were not made parties in the election petition. Those persons who had withdrawn their nomination papers, are not necessary to be added as parties in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules 1995 and also as per judgment of this Court in the case of Devram Patidar Vs. Sadu and Others,

Hence, petition of the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 07-03-2011 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication in accordance with law. No order as to costs.