The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, in a significant decision, held that the presentation of an election petition by an advocate without specific written authorization from the petitioner is invalid under the Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.
This ruling came in a writ appeal filed by Kamlabai, who contested and won the election for the post of Sarpanch in Ward No. 2, Village Panchayat Bhanwrasa, Neemuch. Her victory was challenged by Rajendra Singh through an election petition, alleging corrupt practices.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea for Licensing Sharp-Edged Weapons
The election petition was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer on August 17, 2022. Kamlabai argued that the petition should be dismissed as it violated Rules 3 and 7 of the Panchayat Rules. Specifically, the petition was not filed by Rajendra Singh himself, nor by someone authorized in writing. Instead, it was filed by his advocate without any explicit authorization.
“There has to be specific authorization in favour of an advocate to present an election petition,” the Court observed.
The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Pranay Verma reviewed the original ordersheet and found no signature or recorded presence of Rajendra Singh at the time of filing. The petition was clearly noted to be presented by Advocate Mahesh Patidar.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Principal’s Appointment Over Violation of Seniority Rule
The Court emphasized that Rule 3 mandates that the election petition must be presented either by the petitioner or by someone specifically authorized in writing. The rule does not mention "Advocate," and a general vakalatnama is insufficient unless it clearly states that the advocate is authorized to present the petition.
In addressing Rule 7 concerning the deposit of a security amount, the Court noted that the deposit of ₹500 was made prior to the presentation of the petition. As such, there was no violation of Rule 7, since the petition was accompanied by a receipt of deposit.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Criticizes Madhya Pradesh Police Over Custodial Death: "Man Dies, No Arrest In 10 Months!"
“The deposit of security is mandatory either at the time of or before the presentation. However, it must accompany the petition. Deposit after filing is not valid,” the Court clarified.
However, the issue of presentation was more critical. The Court referred to previous judgments including Rani Agrawal v. Ajay Kumar Pathak and Tara v. Dabla, which held that presentation of an election petition by an advocate without clear written authorization is non-compliance with Rule 3 and renders the petition invalid.
The Court found fault with the Single Judge’s earlier decision, which had presumed that the petitioner was present during the filing. The Division Bench stated that in legal matters involving mandatory rules, there is no scope for assumptions or liberal interpretation.
“In the case of non-compliance of mandatory provisions... there cannot be any presumption. These rules are to be strictly complied with,” the Bench reiterated.
In light of these findings, the High Court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge, and dismissed the election petition filed by Rajendra Singh.
Case Title: Kamlabai Versus Rajendra Singh And Others, Writ Appeal No. 2165 Of 2023
