Dismissed

Murli Manohar Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Oct 2021CW/9906/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the non-compliance of statutory election rules in Gram Panchayat elections. The Court held that since elections were concluded and members elected, the petition stands dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. No order other than dismissal.

Murli Manohar Khandelwal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9906/2020

¶4

Murli Manohar Khandelwal S/o Shri Bhanvar Lal Khandelwal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 1-B-253, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶5

Chetan Prakash S/o Late Shri Sudesh Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 368, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

¶6

Asharam Tripathi S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 1-A-49, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶7

Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 65, B-3, Rameshwar Nagar, Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

¶11

Election Commissioner, Rajasthan Election Commission, Jaipur.

¶12

District Collector, Jodhpur Cum District Election Officer, (Panchayat)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Goswami. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CW-9906/2020]

¶17

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶18

Order

¶19

28/10/2021

¶20

The petitioners are residents of village Kudi Bhagtasni, Jodhpur. In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have raised grievance that the Gram Panchayat elections were conducted without following the mandatory statutory Rules contained in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules” for short). In particular, the case of the petitioners is that as per Rule 3 of the said Rules, Panchayat circle is to be divided into as many wards as may be fixed under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the said act” for short). As per subrule (4) of Rule 3, while dividing Panchayat circle into wards, the authorized officer of the Government has to form, as far as practicable, a contiguous group of houses and as per sub-rule (7) each ward or constituency has to be assigned a separate serial number, starting from North-West corner following anti-clockwise direction.

¶21

The case of the petitioners is that without following such procedure, the Panchayat Election Commission proceeded to commence election for Gram Panchayat in question. Petitioners had objected to the same, despite which without following the due procedure, Election Commission proceeded with the election process, upon which this petition has been filed.

¶22

The prayers made in the petition include for declaration that the action of the authorities is illegal in so far as it relates to conduct of elections in Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasni and

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

[CW-9906/2020]

¶25

accordingly to set-aside the same. Further, directions be issued to the Election Officer for demarcating proper wards and publishing the voter list in accordance with the said Rules. The interim relief prayed is for staying the ensuing Gram Panchayat election for the said village which were to take place on 06.10.2020.

¶26

The elections are duly concluded. Elected members formed the Panchayat Samiti which is functioning for over a year now. Under the circumstances, quite apart from the limitation of exercise of writ jurisdiction against the action of a Constitutional Authority like Election Commission, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners until and unless the elected members are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners also agreed that the direct and immediate effect of allowing the petition and prayers made therein would be to set aside the elections and affect the elected representatives of the Panchayat. That being the position, in our view, no order can be passed without hearing such persons who are likely to be affected by the order that maybe passed in this petition.

¶27

To counter this proposition the counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the Division Bench Judgment of Madras High Court dated 12^th January, 2007 in case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Versus The State Election Commissioner . Our attention was drawn to following portion of the judgment:-

¶28

“252. A submission was made on behalf of the respondents that in the absence of all the candidates, and particularly the successful candidates, such election could not have been set aside in respect of all the wards. The decision of the Supreme Court in (2006) 8 SCC 487 (Avtar Singh Hit vs. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee) has been relied upon in support of the contention that in the absence of elected representatives, no such dispute should be decided.

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

[CW-9906/2020]

¶31

In my considered and humble opinion, the ratio of the said decision may be applicable to the peculiar facts situation of the present case. All the writ petitions had been filed as public interest litigations. It is of course true that five of the writ petitions were filed by the political parties whose candidates were contesting in the election. However, other petitions had been filed either by the candidates or even citizens who cherish democratic value. A free and fair election has been held to be a basic principle of democracy and democracy is considered to be a basic structure of the Constitution. The purport of the petitions was to ensure free and fail poll. The duty was upon the Election Commission and other officials to ensure such free and fair poll. Such officials were before the Court. All the writ petitions had been filed at a stage when results were yet to be announced. These public interest litigations cannot be equated with election petitions under the statutory provisions, which require that all candidates should be impleaded. At the time when the petitions were filed counting had not begun. Subsequently when counting was permitted to be undertaken, it was specifically indicated that declaration of results would be subject to the decision in the writ petitions. In fact under a specific direction of the court, in the certificates in favour of the successful candidates, it has been so indicated. Therefore, all the successful candidates knew that their election as Councillors was in peril being subject to the result of the writ petitions. Keeping in view the peculiar nature of the case and the main purpose of filing the public interest litigations which was to ensure free and fair election, it cannot be said that in the absence of the candidates or even the successful candidates, the writ petitions were hit by the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties.”

¶32

The judgment of the Madras High Court is rendered in rather peculiar and vastly different circumstances. It was a case in which the Court was dealing with the allegations of large scale strongarm tactics, violence and booth capturing by certain political outfits which allegedly vitiated the entire election process. It was on this ground that the Court had made the observations noted above. These observations and findings cannot be interpolated in the present circumstances.

¶33

Before concluding, we may observe here that the Election Commission may examine the concerns and issues raised by the

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

[CW-9906/2020]

¶36

petitioners regarding non following of statutory Rules before conducting election and may consider them in the next election if the petitioners allegations and grievances are found genuine.

¶37

Subject to above observations, the petition is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶38

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶39

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶40

287-jayesh/-

Murli Manohar Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli Manohar Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deu Ram Vs Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff Service Sel. Board

Bhawar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Pappu Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S. Rishabh Green Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Mukesh Tyagi

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Raju Devi