Allowed

Mani Ram v. Ram Niwas andANR

Rajasthan HC26 Sept 2016CW/13132/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court set aside ex-parte orders and judgments that disqualified a Sarpanch based solely on failed service of notice via registered post. The Court held that election outcomes represent the sovereign will of the people and must be decided on merits rather than procedurally. The matter was remitted to the District Judge for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned ex-parte order dated 23.01.2016 and judgment dated 27.08.2016 set aside; matter remitted to District Judge, Jhunjhunu to decide election petition afresh within four months.

Mani Ram Vs Ram Niwas andANR — Election Law | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

CWP 13132/2016

¶3

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13132 of 2016 Mani Ram son of Shri Data Ram VERSUS

¶5

Ram Niwas son of Shri Kushala Ram and Others

¶6

Date of Order ::: 26.09.2016

¶7

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

¶8

Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anil Poonia, Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for Mr. Deshraj Kalwania, Counsel for the respondents

¶9

¶10

Instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Court of District Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby election petition filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and the election of the petitioner was set aside.

¶11

It is pleaded in the present petition that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gowala Tehsil Chirawa District Jhunjhunu.

¶12

Aggrieved against the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, respondent No.1, namely Ramniwas instituted an election petition on the ground that the petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification and, hence, was disqualified to contest the election.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the election of the petitioner has been set aside due

¶14

¶15

CWP 13132/2016

¶16

to passing of an ex-parte order. Counsel has further submitted that on 23.01.2016 (Annexure-2), the Court passed an order that since the petitioner has refused to receive notice sent through registered post, hence, he is to be proceeded ex-parte.

¶17

Order dated 23.01.2016 (Annexure-2) passed by the Court below reads as under :-

¶18

“odqyk; Qfjds'k mifLFkrA v;kph ua- 1 euhjke dh rkfey jftLVªh fnukad 01@12@2015 ds fy, bUdkjh ls izkIr gqbZ gSA voyksdu fd;k x;kA rkehy i;kZIr gSA v;kph ua-1 f[kykQ ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkrh gSA ;kph dh rjQ ls vf/koDRkk izkFkZuk i= vks- 7:- 14 lh- ih- lh- dk is'k dj mlds lkFk QkeZ ua- lfgr ,d nLrksot is'k fd;kA izkFkZuk i= dh udy ih- ih- dks fnykbZ xbZA tokc gsrq le; pkgkA i=koyh okLrs is'k gksus tokc nksuksa nj- vks-7 :-14 lh- ih- lh- fnukad 17@03@2016 dks is'k gksA”

¶19

The election of the Sarpanch represents the Will of the

¶20

people. The election should not have been set aside in an ex-parte manner. Mere report of Postman regarding refusal to receive notice sent by registered post should not have been sufficient for the Court to proceed against the elected office bearer, ex-parte. The Court should have satisfied itself about the result of ordinary process in which notices were sent for affecting service upon the petitioner.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that since the will of the people is sovereign because of ex-parte order, same cannot be trampled. The election petition should be decided on merit.

¶22

Consequently, present petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 23.01.2016 (Annexure-2) and judgment dated 27.08.2016 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Judge, Jhunjhunu to decide election petition No.71/2015; titled as Ramniwas

¶23

¶24

CWP 13132/2016

¶25

Vs. Maniram & Others, afresh within a period of four-months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

The parties, through their Counsel, are directed to

¶27

appear before the Court trying election petition on 06.10.2016.

¶28

Stay application needs no address in view of the disposal

¶29

of this petition.

¶30

[ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] J.

¶31

ashok/

Mani Ram v. Ram Niwas andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram v. Ram Niwas andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Singh andORS Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Mrs Kamlesh Rani Vs State Education Departmentors

Prem Devi and Others Vs Ganesh Ram Prasad and Others

Patram Singh Vs Divisional Commiss Jaipur Anr.

Lalit Ramawat Vs Madhu Ram and Others

Abdul Gaffar Vs Naimuddin Qureshi