Full Judgment
W.P.No.11209/2012 (Azam Beg versus Javed Khan & Ors.) 06.08.2012 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2012, passed by the Election Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Sehore in election petition No.03/11, filed by the respondent No.1 against the election of the petitioner as member of Municipal Council, Sehore.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had not filed the application in person, which is a mandatory requirement of the provisions of Section 20 of the M.P.Municipalities Act read with M.P.Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 1962.
It is also submitted that the petitioner, in the election petition, has assailed his caste certificate, which is not permissible in accordance with law but the Election Tribunal, without properly construing and considering the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.has rejected the same by the impugned order dated 09.07.2012, being aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the W.P.No.11209/2012 (Azam Beg versus Javed Khan & Ors.) petitioner at length.
From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the Election Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the election petitioner was infact present in person and had also signed the order sheet, though it was not specifically so stated in the order sheet, and therefore, the objection to that effect was misconceived.
The Election Tribunal thereafter relying upon the decision of this court rendered in W.P.No.14971/2010 (Sunil Kumar Rati versus Devendra Verma) as well as decision reported in 2010(3) MPLJ 41 has held that the dispute regarding the caste of a candidate can also be gone into in the election petition and has accordingly dismissed the objection of the petitioner.
Having perused the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that there is no patent illegality or manifest infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this court inasmuch as the fact that the election petitioner has signed the order sheet and was personally present while presenting the petition is undisputed.
That apart, the second objection regarding adjudication of caste has rightly been rejected by W.P.No.11209/2012 (Azam Beg versus Javed Khan & Ors.) the Election Tribunal in view of the decisions of this Court which have been mentioned in the impugned order.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(R.S.Jha) Judge gn