Full Judgment
1 WRIT PETITION NO.12002/2013 16/08/2013 Shri G.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
Order dated 05.03.2013 and 30.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Division Jabalpur is being assailed by this writ petition.
By order dated 05.03.2013, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rule 84-B of the Madhya Pradesh (Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan Niyam).1997 has been dismissed.
Whereas, by order dated 30.04.2013, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by respondent No.1 seeking amendment in the relief clause has been allowed.
Election Petition under section 66 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 is at the instance of respondent No.1 against the election held on 20.12.2012 of 'Vyapari Sadsaya' wherein the petitioner was declared elected.
Election Petition is 2 WRIT PETITION NO.12002/2013 on the ground that in the voter list the name of respondent No.1 i.e.the election petitioner one Shri Surendra Kumar Son of Shri Gyan Chand was entered twice and during polling respondent No.2 Alok Kumar Kharya was permitted to cast his vote twice but Surendra Kumar was permitted to vote only once.
On the basis of this irregularity, the respondent No.1 has sought the election to be declared null and void.
On being noticed, the petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Rule 84-B of the Madhya Pradesh Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan Niyam, 1997 on 12.02.2013 seeking dismissal of the petition on the ground that the mandatory stipulations contained under section 66-A of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and Rule 84-B of the Rules of 1997 has been violated.
The said application came to be dismissed on 05.03.2013 holding that since the election petition 3 WRIT PETITION NO.12002/2013 was filed by the election petitioner himself within 30 days from the date of notification which was 08.01.2013 under Rule 84-B of Rules 1997, no statutory provision has been violated.
The order when tested on the facts brought on record that the election petition was filed within time and was presented by the election petitioner, this Court does not find any fault with the order dated 05.03.2013 rejecting the application presented by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11.
That, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be filed by Respondent No.1 seeking amendment in the relief clause.
By incorporating the relief that the election of the petitioner after declaring as null and void, the election petitioner be declared elected by taking into consideration the additional votes.
The relief clause sought to be inserted was found to be in consonance with the pleadings by the election petitioner, therefore, the Tribunal allowed the 4 WRIT PETITION NO.12002/2013 application on 30.04.2013 as no cause was being changed.
The order allowing the amendment application when tested on the anvil of the pleadings in the election petition wherein the election petitioner has raised the ground and the amended relief being in consonance therein, this Court does not find any fault in the impugned order dated 30.04.2013 as would warrant any interference.
In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand