The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the re-election of President of Janpad Panchayat Ujjain noting that the same was not conducted in a free and fair manner.

The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the elected members against an order passed with a liberty to them to take recourse of appropriate remedy of election petition, if they are so advised, to ventilate their grievance.

The division-bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh observed, "It is important to notice that out of 25 elected members 13 were not permitted to cast a vote or did not cast a vote and all these 13 filed the Writ Petition and now writ appeal against the election of respondent No.5 hence, they were not going to cast the vote in her favour, thus, respondent No.5 cannot be treated elected in free and fair election."

The Appellants were represented by Advocate Kuldeep Bhargava while the Respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia.

Facts of the Case

The Appeal was filed solely on the ground that when the writ petition was filed, no alternate remedy was available to the writ petitioners as the election of President of Janpad Panchayat Ujjain was not notified and thus the election petition is liable to be filed only after notification of the election, therefore, the Writ Court ought to have decided the writ petition on the facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of filing of the writ petition. However, as a precautionary measure, the appellants have filed an election petition as the limitation to filing the election petition was going to expire.

After the aforesaid election of Janpad Panchayat, the Presiding Officer issued an election program for conducting an election to the post of President and Vice President under the provisions of the M.P. Up-Sarpanch (President and Vice President) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. According to appellants, 3 elected members were suffering from Covid-19 disease and were unable to cast their votes, therefore, they authorized other people to cast their votes. The applications to that effect were submitted before the Presiding Officer along with the Covid certificate. Similarly, 4 elected members requested for the casting of votes through a companion being an illiterate. The Presiding Officer rejected all the applications that conducted the election and declared Respondent No.5 as the elected candidate by securing 12 votes.

A Writ-Petition against the same was immediately filed contending that the election had been illegally held. According to the appellants out of 25 members, 13 members were not permitted to cast the votes and all the 12 members casted their votes in favour of Respondent No.5 and he was illegally declared as elected President of Janpad Panchayat. Even one of the Appellant who was contesting the election of President was deprived of voting, therefore, it was prayed the the entire election is liable to be conducted afresh.

The Writ-Court made it clear that if notification under Rule 22 has not been issued till now, it should not be issued till the next date of hearing. The Respondent disputed the maintainability of the Writ-Petition for want of efficacious remedy of election petition as the certificate elected President in the name of Respondent No. 5 was issued. On merit, it was submitted that the Returning Officer issued the notices to all elected members in accordance with Rule 12 of Rules, 1995 i.e. 5 days before the meeting. The said notice was served to all the elected members of the Janpad Panchayat Ujjain for the date of election scheduled and election program was affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Office.

Attendance was taken and as many as 21 members were present and voting was started. Three of the elected members filed an application mentioning that they are suffering from the disease Covid-19 hence, their companion may be allowed to vote. Similar applications were also filed by the 7 elected members mentioning that owing to illiteracy, their companion may be allowed to vote. The Presiding Officer rejected the applications mentioning that their application was not in accordance with Rule 6(5) as the companion has to be the nearest family member. It was also submitted that there were 2 nomination forms and the election was held by secret ballot. After voting the Presiding Officer declared respondent No.5 securing the highest number of votes i.e. 12 and declared duly elected by issuing form No.V. The petitioners choose not to vote for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, for that, neither the Presiding Officer nor respondent No.5 can be blamed. Respondent No.5 also filed the reply that after the issuance of the election certificate, the writ petition is not maintainable.

Reasoning By Court

The Court after noting the relevant rules and case laws held that the writ petition is always not barred when in a given facts and circumstances, if the High Court believes that there was no free and fair election and the statutory rights available to the candidates were denied, then the writ petition is liable to be entertained.

"After the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioners have preferred an election petition before the Prescribed Authority, but now, the proceedings have been stayed in Writ Petition No.18858 of 2023, and the fact remains that the elections were held in the year 2022 and now 3 years have been passed. Respondent No.5, who was declared elected in an undemocratic manner is continuing on the post and has no authority to continue on the said post. Respondent No.5 cannot be declared elected when the opposite candidate is not permitted to cast the vote. The presiding officer ought to have adjourned the date of election for which he has the authority to do so under the rules. If the petitioners are relegated to pursue the election petition, then by the time the election petition is decided, he will complete his tenure of 5 years. Hence, the election of respondent No.5 to the post of President Janpad Panchayat Ujjain is liable to be declared illegal and void," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Bhanwarbai And Others vs. Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission And Others (2025:MPHC-IND:1135)

Appearances:

Appellants- Advocate Kuldeep Bhargava

Respondents- Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia, Advocate Ayush Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Devansh Awal, Additional Advocate General Vishwajit Joshi, Advocate Pratyush Mishra

Click here to read/ download Order






Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Vivek RusiaJustice Gajendra Singh

Sheetal Joon