Dismissed

Chotu Lal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2018CW/10025/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of a nomination due to alleged non-disclosure of information. The Court held that Article 243Q provides an alternate remedy through an election petition before the District Judge under Rule 80 of the Election Rules, barring writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was directed to file an election petition as the alternative remedy under Rule 80 of the Election Rules, 1994.

Chotu Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 10025/2015

¶3

Chotu Lal S/o Shri Radheshyam Caste Brahmin Aged about 47 years, R/o lhilai Panchayat Sarniti, Newai Tehsil Newai Distt. Tonk.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Department of Secretariat, 2. The istridEl"ection Officer, Tonk, -% i. . 3. The S,ub . :: - Dv~sional Collector & Election ": Tonk.

¶7

han".;ar Lal Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish
Jhilai Ward no.1 Tehsil Newai Distt!$onk.
i";""g:;: y""
5. The Returning Offic[email protected]"%t Gram Panchayat Jhilai
- ..u' $# $,?z$+>$ pV2
Tehsil Newai istrictfikk~$Tp-<*\ S.+S-- FJ%. .:AxJ"- .u-" : :& .AL&. ..
.Ie 5 fi,T!&&& "P -7 k,ttP
v.. f
'.%+ a,gb3&gg2,@>jik% ----Respondents
Wb a. A-?,
.q:-&:**.fi~->~;%.-3#?e ER
." ". ''<~eplr"''""?* L&-q#"p as.$
R. . jb eL+L.,- t* * 8.. j wB..-p+::I$ -. - , .-* %p d?L'pp ., ,d&.
For Petitioner(s) -'tG'qflr&$~barmenn#8a '<J$~J LA iY: &kt-f&. ,. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : 5 yqgs7 &I - a ts 1 XY? 8 bl
G gi ij ii si Z$
i R& ,k ii 9sA tl

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JU INGH SIRADHANA

¶9

01/10/2018

¶10

Challenging the e dent No.4-Bhanwar Lal

¶11

Yadav, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):

¶12

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Civil Writ Petition and may kindly be called and examine entire record related to Election 2015 of Gram Panchayat Jhilai, Tehsil Newai District Tonk and may also be declared null and void election of the sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jhilai, Tehsil, Newai District Tonk and may be issued quo warranto to respondent No.4 on the basic of non-discloser

¶13

full and complete truthful information relating to format 4-0 in his nomination form, while he pursed this post and may be declared disqualified to elected Sarpanch Respondent No.4.

¶14

Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

¶15

Essential skeletal material facts, in nut-shell, are that the petitioner contested election to the post of Sarpanch Gram , 'hi p ;' .- -5 f"?$ , i"? "g @ Panchayat ~hilai,~~efiehiil 5 =% "l' Newal, isti$'Tonk$t a. "* r;&y is pleaded case of the petitionetbthat '% 4 he lost the election to repo'gdent No.4.-3 f".5_. Bhanwatr Lal Yadav. ccordin to the learned counsel$&e elected %k "4 -F candidate i.e. Bhanwar Lal Yadav, while participating in the election process furnis and did not disclose complete particular with reference to format IV-D under RUI$ asthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 Rules of 1994). Thus, nomination paper of re Bhanwar Lal Yadav, was improperly accepted ied for such election in the face of Article ution of India so also in view of Section n Panchayati Raj Act, -A ' 1994 (for short, Act of qqC$$)

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the materials on record and considered the submissions put-forth.

¶17

In exercise of powers conferred by Section 102 read with Section 17(5) of the Act, 1994 and all other powers enabling in this behalf, Election Rules, 1994, have been fraud; which provide a

¶18

complete procedure and manner to challenge an election under

¶19

the Act of 1994. Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994, reads thus:

¶20

'We 80. Manner of challenging an election under the Act.- An election under the Act or the Rules may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting a petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election is declared, on any one or more of the following grounds-

¶21

(a) that on the date of e1ection.a ceturned candidate was not 3 4? qualified or was distjuahfie%~~oiioc&~~~ gE$-tion or A!"'" $""$A k*. Xj: a*.$ (b) that any%cogr pt'practce was commt-tq, by-a-candidate p.,ha. 8 or by any other person with the consent or connivante of the L%.+. candidhte., or

¶22

p%*

¶23

d, .fc)=that any nomination was improperly rejected, or .w

¶24

(d) that the result of the elec-tionij so far as it concerns the V'-" "". returned candidateiwa2~a ed-

onnivance of such

candidate, or

of the Act or of

(e) that in fact t,I+pt;ikionero~,dhe other candidate received a majority%$~d#i;~~~v0"t"es"r".6d

¶29

(f) that but for votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the petitioner or some other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes."

¶30

A glance of Rule 80 would reflect that the manner to challenge an

¶31

election under the Act of 1994, has been provided on any of the grounds detailed out therein. Sub Rule (a) of Rule 80 in no uncertain terms contemplates a ground to assail an election if the candidates on the date of election was not qualified. Thus, election of a returned

¶32

candidate can be challenged if he was not qualified or was disqualified for such election. Further, sub Rule (c) of Rule 80, contemplates that institution of election petition in case of any nomination if improperly rejected.

¶33

In the case of Ghisa Ram Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2010 (2) CDR 1098 (Raj.), a Coordinate Bench of this Court on a survey of earlier opinions, including thoserofrS,upreme Court, in no uncertain " . 4 * !. ,-"-". - ". 3 ,. &*#a F .j* '.-" terms observed that *r$ic!e243(0) clearlj pro$~des-tFat no election to . "" 4 6, t. 4-3 Panchayati Raj '&all be called in question except by akelection petition " id"; F;;" FJ " ..i'> and thepple$ that Rule 80 of the Election Rules will corn% into an ' 3 +d.Z' operation only after the result of the election is declared, was not

¶34

thus:

¶35

Election before the the declaration of the results. In being created in had enacted Article 2430 <ffTfh'f$fi$tifuiri3~ India. It is essential to F a . z, 6 -* .7 note that ~rtick 2430 is contained in part IX of the Constitution, a part which places the entire Panchayati Raj on a high Constitutional pedestal. Since the intention of the legislature was to ensure a smooth democratic election at the grass root level, i.e. at the Panchayat level, Article 2430 clearly imposed a bar by stating that no election to Panchayati Raj shall be called in question except by an election petition. Thus, it created an alternate remedy.

¶36

The alternate remedy is reflected both in Section 117 of the Act which uses the verbatim expression as Article 2430 of the Constitution of India, as well as in Rule 80 of the Election Rules.

¶37

Rule 80 of the Election Rules is as under:

¶38

Manner of challenging an election under the Act. - An election under the Act or under the Rules may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting a petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election is declared, on any one or more of the following grounds:

¶39

hf $5 $ j (a) that{ FB *.-.a nhthesi $ &-. dcct-e ,ofc?elecf ion, a returned B -- "h" &# cacra$e was not qualified or .was C, $qhh" election, or 5" ++ e \ (b) that any corrupt practice was commit?$fbby a e candidate or by any other person with the tpnient or connivance of the candidate, or

¶40

Ion in so far as it ate was materially

¶41

e of any nomination, or mmitted in the rson other than

¶42

cion of any vote which was void, *-. - w- 4 $ *b-a 1,1

¶43

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of these rules, or

¶44

(e) that in fact the petitioner of some other candidate received a majority of the valid votes, or

¶45

(f) that, but for votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the petitioner or some other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes.

¶46

A bare perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that it does cover the stage when nomination paper needs to be filed and needs to be scrutinized. In case a candidate is aggrieved by the fact that the nomination was improperly rejected, under Rule 80 of the Election Rules he can only file an election petition before the District Judge. The interpretation being given by Mr. Singodiya that Rule 80 of the Election Rules comes into operation only after the election results have been declared is untenable as Rule 80 of the Election-Rules clearly states that it deals with the stage when the nomination papers need to be filed. Of course, it is true. that,Rule 80 of the Election Rules a .&I " I .:s-+i prescribes,tlp?; pecodi-, ofKf.i.tytat..on #or filing of the 8% %.-%I. " *%,an $"-u. electior petit~on. But merely because .i.tgprescribes a ""B c limitation .% Q' I period, the interpretation gia *-d % by Mr. Singodiya cannot be (accepted. Yp' &*4 Y-+' '3P"(q V %@. In N.P. Pdnnuswami v. Returning Officer, NamEkkal 1952 : AIR 1952 erved as under:

¶47

The word procedure of esult thereof - er is included in the term. T as been used in Part e sense, that is to say to be gone through to re. The use of the Article 324 that meaning e other provisions icle 329(b). The term "election" may be taken to embrace the whole procedure 'x.rTr$m ;:-*Tr-'"" which consistshhoi. -several sfagedand embraces many steps, whereby an "elected member" is returned, whether or not it be found necessary to take poll. It is not used in a narrow sense.

¶48

Moreover as ~ble 80 provides an alternate remedy, that too an efficacious alternate remedy, the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot even be invoked.

¶49

In case of improper acceptance of nomination, proper challenge can only be made by filing of an election petition as has

¶50

(7 of 7)

¶51

[CW-10025/2015]

¶52

been ruled in the case of Sushi1 Kumar Rawal Vs. State & Ors: AIR 2008 (NOC) 1544 (Raj.).

¶53

Having considered the pleadings and statement of the petitioner as to the disqualification of the elected candidates; the petitioner was required to institute an election petition as provided under the Election Rules of 1994.

¶54

is devoid of

¶55

remedy by way of electi

Chotu Lal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotu Lal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijendra Chema and Anr. Vs Registrar Sahakari Bank Anr.

Kautilya Mahila T.T. College Vs Co-Ordinator, P.T.E.T.-2018, M.D.S. University

Amit Navariya Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahay Navariya Vs State of Raj. through Its Secretary

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Satya Narayan Sharma S/O. Shri Choga Lal Sharma Vs Narayan S/O. Shri Madan Gopal Garg

Babu Lal Agarwal S/O Shri Phool Chand Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary