ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs SMT MONIKA

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by respondent No. 1 in Election Petition No. 16-A/89-A/16- 2014-15.

The petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 to 7 filed their nomination paper for election for the post of Sarpanch from Gram Panchayat Bhilon, Tehsil Khurai, District Sagar. The election was contested and respondent No. 7 was declared elected in the said election. Being aggrieved by that the petitioner has filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Adhiniyam''). In the said election petition, the petitioner has made an allegation that the election was not conducted in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that some persons who were not alive have casted their votes and have also taking various grounds. During the pendency of the said election petition, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. thereby explaining the allegations in the said election petition. After notice, respondent No. 7 had filed reply and denied the allegations made in the election petition. Thereafter, election tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence led by both the parties and respondent No. 1 vide order dated 15.03.2016 has dismissed the said election petition. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that respondent No. 1 has erred in dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that respondent No. 7 was the member of the society and he has not resigned from the said society and this fact was not disclosed by him in the nomination paper. The election tribunal has not decided the election petition on the basis of the available record. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has raised a specific plea in the election petition that number of persons who had died, have casted their votes, however, the tribunal has not framed any issue in that regard. It has further been submitted that the order passed by the respondent is a cryptic order and he has not given the finding on each of the issues. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the SDO for deciding the matter afresh.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order passed by respondent No. 1. He submits that after taking into consideration the entire evidence led by both the parties, respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the order passed by the SDO. The petitioner has filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 7 on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhilon, Tehsil Khurai, District Sagar. From perusal of the record, it reveal that the petitioner by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has raised a specific plea that there are number of persons whose names are not including in the voting list, they have casted their votes. It has further been submitted that the number of persons who had expired, their names have also been in the voter list and some one has casted the votes in their behalf. From perusal of the order, it reveals that respondent No. 1 has framed the following issues:- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

However, in spite of specific pleadings taken by the petitioner in the amendment application which was allowed by respondent No. 1, no issue has been framed on this aspect. It is further seen that the SDO has not given any finding on each of the issues. The finding given by respondent No. 1 on issue numbers 1 and 2 is a cryptic and there is no discussion of evidence while deciding the said issues. It is incumbent on the part of respondent No. 1 to frame issue when a specific pleading has been made by the petitioner in the application for amendment and should have given an opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence on the said issues as well as the SDO should have given findings on each issue framed. In the present case, as respondent No. 1 has failed to do the same, I deem it proper to set aside the said order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.03.2016 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the election petition afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The election petition be decided within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.