Dismissed

Pooni Devi v. Varsa

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2018CW/10589/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a defendant Returned Candidate alleging misdirection in the presentation of an election petition. The Court held the application was frivolous, aiming to delay proceedings, and directed the Election Tribunal to decide the election petition within three months. An interim stay was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as frivolous. Election Tribunal directed to decide the election petition within three months. Interim stay order vacated.

Pooni Devi Vs Varsa — Election Law | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 10589/2018

¶3

Pooni Devi W/o Shri Ramavtar Ji, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Village Jakhal, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Varsa W/o Shri Veera Ram, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Village Dedava, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).

¶7

Smt Ramila W/o Shri Bhagirath,, By Caste Meghwal, Village Jakhal, Tehisl Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).

¶8

The Senior Civil Judge Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manoj Bhandari. For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.K.Bissa. Mr.H.G.Chanda.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

08/10/2018

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

¶15

By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner being the defendant Returned Candidate before the Election Tribunal, Sanchore in Election Petition No.14/2015 (58/2015) has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 6.7.2018 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-10589/2018]

¶18

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the other material placed on record.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that the election petition was presented by the election petitioner (respondent herein) to the Sessions Judge, Jalore, who has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The election petition can only be presented to a District Judge in terms of Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994.

¶20

It may be mentioned here that previously, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9674/2018 assailing the presentation of the election petition claiming that the same was presented to the Munsarim of the District Judge who was not competent to take the presentation thereof. The said writ petition was rejected by this Court on 18.7.2018. Soon thereafter, the petitioner has again tried to subterfuge and delay the proceedings of the election petition by filing the questioned application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. claiming that the election petition was presented before the Sessions Judge. Suffice it to say that this Court is duly satisfied that the petitioner is making repeated efforts to somehow or the other and by hook or crook delay the decision of the election petition. No such ground was taken by the petitioner in the earlier application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 18.5.2015 which in turn was upheld by this Court while dismissing the petitioner’s earlier writ petition. The election petition submitted by the respondent is addressed to the District Judge, Jalore. The presentation of the election petition was conceived by

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-10589/2018]

¶23

the Office Superintendent with the seal “District and Sessions Judge, Jalore”. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can it be accepted that the election petition was presented to the Sessions Judge, Jalore.

¶24

In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is misusing the legal provisions by filing repeated applications with an intention to stall the proceedings of the election petition. She is warned not to file any frivolous applications to this end in future. In case, any such application is filed, the Election Tribunal shall dismiss the same with heavy and exemplary costs and the defence of the petitioner shall be closed.

¶25

The writ petition is totally frivolous and is dismissed as such. The Tribunal is directed to decide the election petition positively within the next three months.

¶26

The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is disposed of. The interim stay order dated 25.7.2018 is vacated and the stay application is dismissed.

¶27

No order as to costs.

¶28

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶29

/tarun goyal/ 25

Pooni Devi v. Varsa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooni Devi v. Varsa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Roop Giri

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Laxmi Beniwal

Arjun Lal Paliwal Vs Dig Registration and Colle., Bhilwara Andanr

Kewal Ram Vs State

Indian Railway Dalit Cat. Co-Op. So. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ishwar Lal Vs Pukhraj Sad and Ors.