Ganpat Lal Sharma vs Surya Prasad and others

Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.—This is a revision u/s 26(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act against an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, on an election petition filed u/s 20 of the same Act.

Three points have been raised in this Court. In the first place it has been contended that the Court below was wrong in taking the view that one of the rejected ballot papers was really a valid ballot paper in favour of the respondent No. 1.

I have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties on this question. The facts are not in dispute. On the left half of the voting paper there are the names of the two contesting candidates. First comes the name of Ganpatlal Sharma, the applicant. Next is the name of Surya Prasad alias Mannulal Mishra. On the right half of the paper there is a heading meaning thereby that in that portion of the paper the vote has to be cast. Rule 10(4) of the relevant rules provides that the cross-mark has to be placed against the name of the candidate for whom the vote is cast. In this context the phrase ''against the name of the candidate'' can only mean that the cross-mark has to be placed under the heading, in front of the name of the candidate for whom the vote is cast. In the disputed voting paper no cross-mark was placed on the right side of the peper, but between the two names which have been typed a cross-mark has been put. Obviously, this is not according to the rules.

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondent was that the phrase ''against the name of the candidate'' can also mean ''in proximity of the name of the candidate'', and, according to the counsel, the cross-mark in this case is nearer the name of his client than the name of the applicant and it, therefore, complies with the requirement of the rules. I am unable to agree with this contention. The word ''against'' undoubtedly has several meanings, but it has to be understood with reference to the context and that meaning is to be applied which fits in. As stated above, in view of the form of the ballot paper and the language used in Rule 10(4), the only meaning of the word ''against'' that can be applied is ''opposite'' so that the cross-mark has to be put opposite the name of the candidate for whom the vote is cast. The Court below was wrong in taking this vote as a valid vote for the respondent.

In view of this finding, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the other points raised, but the points may be mentioned.

The next contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant was that the learned Additional District Judge who entertained the election petition had no jurisdiction to do so. There is a conflict of opinion in this matter. A Division Bench of this Court in Motilal Verma and Others Vs. Narainprasad Sampatram and Others, , held that the words ''District Judge'' or ''Additional District Judge'' used in the section to give jurisdiction meant that the jurisdiction was given to a particular individual and not to the Court. On the contrary, another Division Bench of this Court in Ramchander Bhagwandas Vs. Second Additional District Judge and others, came to a contrary conclusion. This latter case was not cited in the earlier one. To solve this conflict it may have been necessary to refer the case to a larger Bench, but in view of the fact that this matter need not be decided in this case, I refrain from doing so.

The last contention, raised by the Learned Counsel for the respondent, was that the nomination paper of the applicant Ganpatlal Sharma was not properly presented and, therefore, he could not be declared elected. This point was raised after the period for filing election petitions had expired and although the amendment had been allowed without going into the question of limitation, the Court below has not gone into the facts of that point because the question had been raised after the period of limitation and any new ground introduced into the election petition after the expiry of limitation was incompetent. The mere fact that in ignorance of the matter of limitation, amendment had been allowed does not justify that the question of limitation should not be considered later on. I, therefore, agree with the Court below that this point having been raised too late need not be decided on merits.

On consideration of the whole matter, the result is that the applicant Ganpatlal Sharma having obtained larger number of valid votes was rightly declared elected. The election petition is dismissed. This revision succeeds and is allowed with costs throughout.