ROHINI PRASAD Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER MAIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maihar, pronounced on 19th January19566 allowing an election petition presented by the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 challenging the election of the petitioner as a Sarpanch of the Oram Panchayat of Jariari. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch was void and directed a fresh election.

(2.) BY rule 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962, it is provided that the procedure of election of the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch shall be the same as provided in rule 78. Rule 78 lays down the procedure for the co-option of Panchas. According to these rules, a meeting of the elected and co-opted members of the Gram Panchayat was held on 2nd February 1965 for electing a Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of the Panchayat. The Collector had nominated the respondent No. 2 Shyam Sunder, Head-Master of a High School of Amdara, for presiding over the meeting. Sub-rule (18) of rule 78 lays down that the ballot paper shall be signed by the Chairman of the meeting and one paper handed over to each panch who shall put a cross (X) against the candidate for whom he wishes to vote, and if a voter is unable through illiteracy, blindness or other physical infirmity to record his vote, the Chairman shall record the vote on the ballot paper in accordance with the wishes of the voter. The petitioner Rohini Prasad and the respondent No. 3 Deman contested the election for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner secured 11 votes and Deman obtained 5 votes. Accordingly, the Chairman declared the petitioner as elected to the office of Sarpanch.

(3.) SHRI Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the respondent No. 1, the Sub-Divisional Officer, had no jurisdiction whatsoever to set aside the election of the petitioner on a ground not raised by the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 in their election petition; that sub-rule (17) of rule 78 did not require that the ballot papers issued to the Panchas should bear serial numbers or the signature of the Block Development Officer; that the ballot papers handed over to each Punch was strictly in accordance with the form prescribed by sub-rule (17); and that all the ballot papers had been marked very clearly so as to give a clear indication of the person for whom the votes had been cast.