Surendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Heard.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2017 whereby the SDO-cum- Prescribed Competent Authority, Panchayat Election, Sitamau District Mandsaur has directed for recounting of the votes of poling booth nos.210, 211 and 213 within a period of one month.

Election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Belar, Tehsil Sitamau District Mandsaur held on 05.02.2015 and notified on the same day i.e. on 05.02.2015. In the election, the present petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. Respondent no.17 Mahipal Singh filed an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 alleging malpractice in the poling booth nos.210, 211 and 213 and irregularities in counting of votes. The present petitioner appeared and filed the written statement. The learned Tribunal has framed five issues for adjudication which are under:-

''वाद बिन्दु क्रमांक-1

क्या अधिकृत निर्वाचन अभिकर्ता सुरेश-कारूलाल के स्थान पर प्रत्यर्थी सुरेश-कारूलाल के स्थान पर प्रत्यर्थी क्रमांक-2 गुलशेर खां ने स्वयं का फोटो लगाकर फर्जी परिचय पत्र बनाकर मतदान केन्द्रों में प्रवेश किया गया था, जिसके कारण निर्वाचन प्रभावित हुआ है?

वाद बिन्दु क्रमांक-2

क्या मतदान क्रेन्द्र 210, 211, 213 अति संवेदनशी होने से यहां पर धांधलीया हुई, जिसके कारण मतदान प्रभावित हुआ है? वाद बिन्दु क्रमांक-3

क्या प्रत्यर्थी क्रमांक-1 सुरेन्द्रसिंह के विरूद्ध एफ.आई.आर. दर्ज होकर उसे सजा हुई है?

वाद बिन्दु क्रमांक-4

क्या याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा मतदान केन्द्रों पर मतगणना के दिन पुनःमतगणना कराने हेतु आवेदन पत्र पेश किया गया था? वाद बिन्दु क्रमांक-5

क्या याचिकाकर्ता को प्राप्त विधिमान्य मतों की मतदान केन्द्र क्रमांक 213 पर जानबुझकर कमी की गई है? यदि हां

तो-इसका प्रभाव? "

In support of the allegations, respondent no.17 examined himself and the petitioner was also examined.

After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has found that recounting of the votes of poling booth nos.210, 211 and 213 is required. While passing the aforesaid order, the learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason. The relevant and operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

"याचिकाकर्ता महिपालसिंह पिता गुलाबसिंह चारण के अभिभाषक श्री राजोरिया एवं अनावेदक क्रमांक-1 सुरेन्द्रसिंह पिता भगवानसिंह राजपुत के अभिभाषक श्री शर्मा द्वारा तर्क सुनाये गये तथा न्यायदृष्टांत भी प्रस्तुत किये गये। मेरे द्वारा प्रकरण का एवं प्रकरण में प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजो, उभयपक्षों के साक्षियों के कथन का अवलोकन कर गहन अध्ययन किया गया तथा तर्को पर मनन किया गया । विचारोपरान्त में इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचता हुॅ याचिकाकर्ता महिपालसिंह पिता गुलाबसिंह जाति चारण निवासी बापच्या तहसील सीतामउ द्वारा अपनी याचिका में प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजों एवं साक्षियों कथन से यह प्रमाणित होता है कि ग्राम पंचायत बैलारा के मतदान केन्द्र क्रमांक 210, 211, 212 व 213 में अनियमितता करना पाया जाना प्रतित होता है।"

It is settled that Election Petition is liable to be decided as a regular suit. For the learned Tribunal it is mandatory to appreciate the evidence and record and give the findings on each and every issues. In the present case, though the learned authority has framed the issues for adjudication, but no independent finding has been given. He has concluded his opinion by holding that on the basis of documents and evidence, irregularities have been found on poling booth nos.210, 211 and 213 in the said election of Sarpanch. The secrecy of the votes is liable to be maintained and order of recounting ought not to be passed in the routine manner. Respondent No.17, being an election petitioner, has alleged that 26 votes were not counted as valid votes and 17 votes have been counted invalid which have affected the result of election.

Though he has pleaded in the memo of the petition, but the learned Tribunal has not recorded any finding as to how the invalid votes were treated as valid and valid votes were treated as invalid by the learned authorities. Therefore, the order is unsustainable in law.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter may be remanded back to the election Tribunal as the Election Tribunal has directed for registration of FIR against the Election Petitioner because he did not disclose his property in the affidavit. This petition is only filed by the elected candidate in which the validity of the finding can not be examined recorded against respondent no.17. So far as the remand is concerned, period of five years is going to be expired in the month of February, 2020 and interim order in this case is in operation since 31.03.2017. There is no application for vacating the stay by the State as well as by respondent no.17. The petitioner has already performing the duties and function of Sarpanch. Next elections are going to be notified very soon and no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. Hence, the impugned order is set aside so far as it relates to recounting of the votes.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Cc as per rules.