[See Section (77-A)]

OBLIGATORY TAXES TO BE IMPOSED BY GRAM SABHA (1)A property Tax on tl1e lands. Dr buildings 01" both. the capital.. ... .. .. vahleofwhlCli.'indtidiilg the value of the landlsmore'then'6000' .. " Rupeesother ihan-,. (al the buildings and lands ow";ed or vested in the Union or State Government. Gram Sabha. Gram Panchayat. Janpad Panchayat. or 2ila Panchayat. II, ,, ,f \ (b) tl1ebuildings and lands or portions thereof used exclusively for religious or educational purposes including boarding houses: e 4[Provided that In the""se.,,!, S,pecialEcono.fl1i~?:one.t,h".D.evelopc", ,."... ' ,mentCommissioflerinay Impose property tax on the lands or buildings n,• )f or both.1 (2)Atax on private latrines payable by the occupier or owner of the buildings to which such latrines are attached when cleaned by Gram Sabha Agency. ,f ,r (3)A light tax. if light arrangements have been made by the Gram Sabha. (4) A tax on person, exercising any profession or carrying on any e )r~9J' 9':~a!.Ii9g,Wit.nlgJh" .!!mlt~91'gr'!!Il,13a1;>ha.a,I;'.~a.1 }'. !'terns-ito .4"omitfed ~-".- 2 Item {7) Inserted by MP Act 19 of 1997 [1*5-1997/. omitted by MP 43 of 1997 15.12.1997). 3 . Ins. by M.P.Act 3 0[2001, w.e.f.26~172001. 4 Proviso added by MP Act 18'of2007 {25-5-2007j. (PA)186 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.131 Provided further that, subject to the proceeding proviso anything done or any' action taken (including any appointment, or delegation made, notification, notice, order, instruction or direction issued, rule, regulation, byelaws, form or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted, registration affected, tax imposed or fee or rate levied), under the repealed Act shall, In so far as it is in force immediately before the coming into force of this Act and is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act. I (2) The arrangement existing for the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Parishad under Section 127 of the repealed Act shall continue, until the corresponding Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat ;mdZila P~shad as the case may be, are constituted under this Act. ' (3) The Collector, shall apportion the assets and liabilities of the existing Gram Panchayat amongst the corresponding Gram Panchayat constituted under this Act according to the guideline issued by the State Government for the purposes. '1[(4) Theia.s,'ls and iiabilities of eJdsting Janpad Panchayat and Zila,Parlshad shall'stand transfer,.edto Janpad PanchayaLand Zila, Panchayat rc~pectively constituted under thisAct.] " . -- '.' '.. - - -" j 131. Savings as to existing pe,rmanent employees.-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or byelaws made thereunder the pay and allowances, pension and retirement benefits of all permanent officers and servants or other employees of the Panchayat on the date on which this Act comes into force shall be existing pay and allowances, pension and retirement benefits. 132, Power to remove diffieulties.-(l) If any difficulty arises in giving effed to the provisi6n,rof this Act, the-State Govetruuentmay;" by order, do anything not inconsistent with the provisions thereof which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of removing the difficulty: • Provided that no such order shall be made under this section after the expiry of two years from the commencement of this Act. , (2) Every order made under this Section shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly. I • ! 1 Subs.by M.P.26 of 1994 130.5,941. :1 , S,130 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)185 Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. Union ofIndia, 2000 (1) JLJ 208=2000 (2) MPHT 193 (DB). , [5J Basis ofreservation being population and figuresI taken from census of1991. Reservation ofseats may be more than 50% in a blockor panchayat area. But overall extent of reservations in the whole of State in reserved categories should not exceed 50%.Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India, 2000 (1) JLJ 208=2000 (2) MPHT 193 (DB), [6J The Constitution itself has recognised necessity ofspecial treatment and protection to the socially and the educationally backward classes or citizens like Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and socially and economically backward citizens. Article 14 of the Constitution permits, therefore, protective treatment to deprived classes ofcitizens vis-a-vis the forward and advanced.classes of the society, Ashok Kumar Tripathi v, Union of India, 2000 (1) JLJ 208=2000 (2) MPHT 193 (DB). 129-F. Powers of Janpad and Zila Panchayat.- Without prejudice to .the generality of powers conferred by this Act, the Janpad Panchayat or the Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, in Scheduled .Areas shall also have the following.powers, namely: (i) to plan, own and manage minor water bodies up to a specified water area; (ii) to, exetdse. ,-control.over iristihitions -and.functitina.:i'ies .-irFal1.--:-::"."-_. -- --;;~ social sectors transferred to them; (iii) to exercise control local plans resources and expenditure for such plans including trtbal sub-plans; and (iv)to exercise and perform such other powers and functions as the State Government' may confer or entrust under any law for the time being in force,) CHAPTER XV - REPEAL I~O. ReReal,.l\.J1d.sa'!'i.ngs.-{1) On apd from_the date of commence- __ --- --- -e ment of this Act the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990 (No. 13 of 1990), shall stand repealed (hereinafter referred to as the . repealed, Act); Provided that the repeal shall not affect:(a) the previous operation of the repealed Act or anything duly . done or suffered thereunder; or (b) .any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act; or _ (c) any penalty, fot.feiture of punishment .incurred in respect of any offence committed against the repealed Act; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be i'W,stituted,continued or enforced, and any such penalty, foneiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act has not been enforced: .. •~ I (PA)184 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHl .• 1993 S.129-E "In sub-section (1) of Section 129-E, after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided also that the Gram Panchayats in the Schedules! areas which have no population of Scheduled Tribes shall be excluded in prescribed manner from allotment of seats or the officesas the case may be, reserved for Panchas or Sarpanchas belonging to Scheduled Tribes," , COMMENTARY 1.No Scheduled Area.-A district will not stand declared as scheduled area merely because its constituents have been declared as scheduled areas. Unless there is a declaration by the President in Part-C ofthe fifth Schedule an area cannot form a part of Scheduled Area. The district has a different unit for the purpose of election under Art. 243-M of the Constitution. The concepts of Zila Panchayat and reservation are different things. The constituents having already been declared Scheduled Areas are maintained as such. Section 129-E cannot override the Constitution. It has to followit till the district as a area or unit is declared as a Scheduled Area for the purpose of election of Zila Panchayat. It cannot be regarded as a Scheduled Area by deductive or syllogistic process. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Tripathi, AIR 20.0.8M.P. 187 = AIR 20.0.8(NOC) 460.(M.P.)[DB]. 2. Reservation of seats in Scheduled Areas of more than 50.%.' Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 40.<if 199@,S.4(a),(g)-reservatiori-of seats in Scheduled Aremdor member••-illexcess of 50.%of population of reserved categories hass benevolent aim of giving reserved categories training and chance of participating in local sel~: Government. Protective discrimination held justified. Ashok KUmar Tripathi v. Union of India, 20.0.1(4) MPLJ 20.6. Similarly resenrations of 100%seats ofChairpersons in Panchayats in Scheduled areas for Scheduled Tribes is not discriminatory. Ashok KJindr Tripathi v. Union of India, 20.0.1(4) MPLJ 20.6. .. 3. Chapter XIV-A, as introduced. by Act 43 of 1997-Scope and purpose of provision.-[l! S.4(g)-of thePanchayats- (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (Central Act 40.of 1996)is in pari materia with the provisions of M.P.Act 43 of 1997 since they both are meant for reservation ofseats in the Panchayats falling in the ScheduledAreas.A~hok Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India, 20.0.0.(1) JLJ 20.8=20.0.0.(2) MPHT 193 (DB). [2] In the matter of reservation, principle of proportionate representation based on population of reserved c'ltegories has been '1dhered to. Departure has been made from it in giving them larger share o~elf-governance. AIR 1993 SC 477 and W.P.No.10l3 of1996 Disting. Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India, 20.0.0.(l) JLJ 20.8,,120.0.0.(2) MPHT 193 (DB). [3J.Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women '1nd Backward Cl'lsses being 44%at the StOltelevel is not high, hence it is neither arbitrary nor excessive. Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India, 20.0.0.(1) JLJ 20.8=20.0.0.(2) MPHT 193 (DB). [4]More than 50.%reservation in fategories including Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas and 100.%reservations for Chairpersons not illegal. c S,129.E PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)183 a (vi)to control local plans, resources and expenditure for such plans including tribal sub-plans, and; I (vII)to exercise and perform such oiher powers and functions as ts h the State Government may confer on or entrust under any law for the time being in force. lS ,r 129.D. Functions of Gram Panchayat.- Without prejudice to the generality of powers conferred by this Act, the Gram Panchayat in Scheduled Areas, under the general superintendence, control and direction of the Gram Sabha shall also have the following powers, namely:- a ,t Ie (i) 1Ixx xl (ii) to manage village markets and melas including cattle fairs by whatever name called; (iii)to (vi)21xx xl (vii)to exercise control local plans, resources and expenditure for Ie A n such plans including tribal sub-plans; and IS (viii) to exercise and perform such other powers and functions as the State Government may confer on or entrust under any law for the time being in force. :e 129-E. Reservation of seats.- (I) The reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every Panchayat in " -Scheduled Areas shall be in ptaportiOn to-their tespectiVe-pOpulatfOh.'. • in that Panchayat: Provided that reservation for Scheduled Tribes shall not be less thati.one-half of the total number of seats: Provided further that all seats ofSarpanch or President, as Ihe case may be, of Panchayats at all levels in Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribes. e n l, (2)The State Government may nominate persons belonging to such Scheduled Tribes as have no representation in a Panchayat in the e e .-Scheduled -Areas'-atthe intermediate level-or'in a'panchayat-in-the Scheduled Areas at the dislrict level: Provided that such nomination shall not exceed one-tenth of the total members to be elected in that Panchayat. s (3)In a Panchayat in Scheduled Areas such number of seats shall be reserved for persons belonging to other backward classes, which together with the seats already reserved for Scheduled Tribes, and Scheduled Castes. If any, shall not dceed three- fourths of all the seats in that Panchayat. [1 j y Applicability to Scheduled Area.-By Notfn. NO.F.I-8-97-XXU-P- 2.- dated 20th March 1999, Pub.in Rajpatra Ext. dated 24th March, -1999.p.334; the Governor ofMadhya Pradesh has applied the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (I of 1994), with the exceptions and modifications as under:- "a 1 Omitted by M.P.Act 5 of 199915-4-1999]. 2 Omitted by M.P.Act 5 of 199915-4-19991. (PA)182 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 S.129-C as may be prescribed, and each such Gram Sabha may consist of a habitation or a group ofhabitations or a hamlet or igroup ofhamlets comprising a community and managing its affairs in accordance with lraditions and customs. 1[(3)The quorum of every meeting of Gram Sabha shall not be less lhan one-tenth of the tolal number of members of the Gram Sabha or five hundred members of the Gram Sabha, whichever is less.] (4) The meeting of "Gram Sabha" shall be presided over by a member of lhe Gram Sabha belonging to the Scheduled Tribes not being the Sarpanch or the Upsarpanch or any member of the Panchayat, to be elected for the purpose by the majority of the members present in lhat meeting. I COMMENTARY Creation of new villages.-This section finds place in Chapter XIV-A whichhas overridingeffectin respect ofthe provisionsofthe Act.Formation of new villages is a legislative function. No question ofinviting suggestions or objectionarises. 1995 MPLJ 152 ReI.Bechansingh v. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPLJ 405=2000 (1) MPWN 121. Rnles:- The State Governmenthas made the followingrules in exercise ofthe powerBconferretl by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules given separately.' .. , "Scheduled Areas Gram Sablta (Constitution, Procedure of Meeting and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1998" . 129-C. Powers and Functions of Gram Sabha.- In addition to the powers and functions contained in Section-?, the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas shall also have the following powers and functions, namely:- (i) 10 safeguard and preserve the traditions and cusfimls of the people. their cultural identity and community resources and the customary mode of dispute resolution: (il) 2[x x xl (iil)to manage natural resources including land, water and forests within the area of the village in accordance with its tradition and in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution and with due regard to the spirit of other relevant laws for the time being in force. (iv) 31x x xJ . (v)to manage village markets and melas including cattle fair, by what ever name called, through the Gram Panchayat; 1 Subs. by M.P. Act 18 of 2007 (25-5-20071 for the following:M{3) Not less than,ane-fifth or one thousand, whIchever is less of the total number of members of the Gram Sabha shall form a quorum for meeting of the Gram Sabha and out of which not less than one-third shall be women members." 2 Omitted by M.P.Act 5 of 1999 [5-4-1999]. 3 Omitted by M.P.Act 5 of 1999 [5-4-19991, I S. 129-B PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHl., 1993 (PA)ISI :7 Governor, who shall cause the said reports to be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly.) Jr 1[(3)The social audit 'Shall be performed by Gram Sabha regarding quality of community work and beneficiary oriented work executed in the Gram Sabha area in prescnbed manneLI rs PREVIOUS PROVISIONS [Before substitution S, 129 was applicable as underj "S. 129. Audit ofPanchayats,-(1) There shall be a separate and independent Audit Organisation under the control ofthe State Government to perform audit of accounts of Panchayats. ~e (2) The Audit Organisation shall consist of such officers and servants, to be appointed by the State Government, as, the State Government may deem fit from time to time. (3) The manner of audit of Panchayat accounts, payment of audit to to to. fees and action on such audit reports shall be such as may be prescnbed. " j- rs '.1 Ie Rules:- The State Governmenthas made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules given separately. e- !l- "PanchayatAuditRules,1997" .__ . at 10. 2[CHAPTERXiv-A- SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR PANCHAYATS--' IN THE SCHEDULED AREAS 'y ~[129-A Definitions.- Notwithstanding anything contain cd in this Act and unless the context otherwise requires in this Chapter: .s (a)'Gram Sabha" means a body consisting of persons whose names are included in the electoral rolls relating to the area of a Panchayat at the village level, or part thereof, for which it is constituted. (b) Village" means a village in the Scheduled Areas which shall se er nrdinaJilyconsist-of a-habitation ora group of habitations or a-hamlet ... ------ ~ or a group of hamlets comprising a community and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions and customs. ts. 129-B. Constitution of Village and Gram Sabha.- (1)The Gover- nor'shall. , . be public notification specifYa "Village"forthe purposes of er 10. this Chapter. T ," . , (2)Ordinanly, there shall be a Gram S\'bha for a "village' as defined in sub-section (1): ' m 1e Proviaed that if the member of the. Gram Sabha so desired, more 1e .than-one Gratn-Sabha maybe constituted hla V1lrage.'in such manner l--lns. by M.P.Act 26 of-2012123-5-20121. 2 Ins. by MP 43 of 1997 15-12-1997). 3'"lJ:Ss.129-A to 129-F ins. by MP 43 of 1997 [5-12-}997]. I.;ff,; : (PA)180 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 S. 127 manner and the objections received have been considered. (2) On making of the order under sub-section (I) the Governor or the authority authorised by him may p"ss such consequentiai orders as may be necessary. 127. Alteration in limits of Block and Zila Panchayat.-(I) The I[Governor] may, by notification 2[change the headquarters of a block or] alter the limits of a block by including therein any local area in the vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein: Provided that no such notification shall be issued unless a notice signifying such intention and inviting objections from persons likely to be affected by the alteration in the limits of the blocks by the date to be specified therein has been published in the prescribed manner and the objections received have been considered: 3[Provided further that no such notification to change the headquarters ofa block shall be issued except to change such headquarters which exist outside the limits ofthe block io a place within that block.] (2) On the issuance of the notification under sub-section (I) the 4[Governor] or the authority authorised by him may pass such consequential orders as may be necessary. (3) On the alteratiorl of the limits of a district. the State Govern- ment may pass such consequential orders in respect ofZila Panchayat as may benecessary .. ' .. ... ..,. 128. Management of Government Iands.-Any Government land transferred to a 5[Panchayat or Gram SabhaJ shall be managed by such 6[Panchayat or Gram Sabhal in :lc('Of(:iancewith such rules as the State Government may make in t!Jb l)c!Jaif. Rules:- The State Governmenthas made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section.Thes,' I(ules shall be found under Rules givenseparately. '''Panchayat (Management o(Government Lands) Rules, 1995" ..... 'CllAPTERXW:AlJDIT ....-- 7'[129. Audit. of Panchayats.-(l) The accounts of the Panchayats shali be audited by.the Director, LocalFund Audit and the Compti-oller and Auditor General of India shall give technical guidelines ahd supervision over the audit of Panchayats. (2) The annual audit report of Director, Local Fund AUQl[on Panchayats along with the annual technical inspection report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of In~ia shall be submitted to the 1 Subs. by MP 39 of 1995. 2 Ins. by MP 43 of 199715-12-1997J. 3 Ins. by MP 43 of.l997'15-12-1997). 4 Subs. by MP 39 of 1995. 5 Subs. by M.P.Act 30£2001, w.e.f.26-1-2001. 6 Subs. by M.P.Act 3 of 2001, w,e.f.26-1--2001. 7 Subs. by M.P. Act 26 of 2011, then ,amended by M.P. Act 26 of;2012. , . 8.1.26 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)179 may be necessary. COMMENTARY I l.Exclusion of Village Kumadi from the area of erstwhile Gram Panchayat Toogni.The objections ofthe villagers were duly considered by the Collectorbefore the issuance offinal notification. High Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision. Case Law considered. La/singh v. State of M.P., 2005 (1) MPLJ 348=2005 (2) MPHT 346=AIR 2005 NOC 250 MP. 2. Notification under- Validity.-Publication of a notification should be effective and meaningful. If a notice is published in Gazette, inviting objections by a particular date and that date has already expired before the notification is received by the persons affected, it is a meaningless and invalid publication. Pranay Gupta v. State of M.P., 2004 (4) MPLJ 574=2005 (1) JLJ 295 (DB). 3. Requirement under the proviso is mandatory.-The object of requirement ofpublication ofnotice is to draw the attention ofthe residents of the area who are likely to be affected by the proposals, so that they can submit their suggestions or file their objection to the proposals, which on consideration may enable the authority concerned to take a proper decision in the matter, either by dropping the proposals or by proceeding in terms of the proposals: The delimitation changes made in exercise ofpowers under .sub,section (1)will materially affect the Tesidents ofthe area. Such changes .... as contemplated in the sub~sectrori.are.nottob.e madelIghtly oi-routinely' . either for political convenience or ~tthe wq.ims of the executive. There sl1ou1d-beproper application of mind and valid reasons for effecting such changes. Pranay Gupta v. State of M.P., 2004 (4)MPLJ 574=2005 (1) JLJ 295 (DB). 4. Alteration in limits of Gram Panchayat area-Change of Head Qua.rter-Amalgamation of two or more Gram Panchayat area to split up a Gram Panehayat.- These are legislative functions. They cannot be challenged in writ petition specially when the objections of the village peoplewere considered-and overruled bythe Collector.AIR 1995MPWT52; -------- AIR 1990 SC 261 and 2002 (2) SCC 7 Foil. AlR 1987 SC 1239 Disting. Lalsingh v" State of M.P., 2005 (2) MPHT 346=AIR 2005 NOC 250 MP='2005 (1) MPI.J 348. ;,'i5;'Rules.- The State Government has made the following rules in exercise ofthe powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules.given s~parately.. :~,."Alteration of Limit, Dis-establishment o'r Change of Head- Quarters .Rules 1994." ,:~!. ' 126. Di!festablishment of village.-(I) The Governor or the authority auihorised by him may, by an order in writing. disestablish a Village: ProVided that no such order shall be issued unless a notice of the proposal inViting objections from persons likely to be affected thereby the date to be specified therein has been published in the prescribed .. (PA)178 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 S.123 improper acceptance of nomination paper due to incomplete information in the declaration did not provide a ground to set aside the election. Siyawati v. Phoolwati, 2009(1) MPHT 301 '" 2009(1) JLJ 431 = AIR 2009 (NOC) 425MP = 2008 (4)MPLJ 437 = 2009(2) MPWN49. 21. Rules:- The State Government has made the following rules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules given separately. "Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995" 123. Power to expel person who refuse to pay fee.-When any fee has been imposed under this Act or the right to collect it has been leased thereunder, any person employed by the I[Panchayat or Gram SabhaJ concerned or any person duly authorised in this behalf by it or by the lessee to collect such fees. may subject to the condition of the lease to collect the fee expel from the place for the use of which a fee is payable, any persons who is liable to pay the fee but refuses to pay it. 124. 2[Panchayat or Gram Sabha) in default of owner or occupier may execute work and recover expenses.-Whenever under the provision of this Act any work Is required by the owner or occupier of any building or land .and default .is made in the execution of such .-.... work the 3[Panchayat or Gram SabhaJ, whe.ther any penalty is or is not provided for such default, may cause such work to be executed, and the expenses thereby incurred shall, unless otherwise expressly provided In this Act, be paid to It by the person by whom such work ought tobave been executed and in case of default of payment, it shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 125. Changes of head'luarters of Gram Panchayat division, amalgamation and alteratian of Panchayat area.-(l) The Governor or the authurity authorised by him may .by_order _cha_ng~_the he",d-__ quarters of a Gram Panchayat or alter, the limits of a Gram Panchayat area by including within it any local area in the vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein or amalgamate two or more Gram Panchayat areas and from one Gram Panchayat area in their place or split up a Gram Panchayat area and from two or more Gram Panchayat areas in its place: . , Provided that no order under this section shall be made unless a proposal in this behalf is published for ,inviting suggestions and objections tn such manner as may be pri!scribed an objections are considered. (2)On the issuance ofthe order under sub-section (1)the Governor or the prescribed authority shall pass such consequential orders as 1 Subs. by M,P.Act 3 of 2001, w.e.f.26-1-2001. 2 Subs. by M.P.Act 3 of 2001, w.e.f.26-1-20Dl. 3 Subs.byM.P.Act3012001.w.e.f.26-1-2001. 2 S. 122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 199.. (PA)177 :s .ofvates and passed .order far setting aside electian .ofthe returned cav.didate. the .orderis bad. Electian petitian suffered fram fatal defect. Amarsingh v. Sub-divisionaIOjflCer, 1997 (2) MPW 192. :e 1- U. Rule 11: Pracedure nat fallawed.-AddL Callectar called the relevant recard and halding thal Gavernment dues were .outstanding against the petitianer and declared electian as illegaL Hald. that pracedure as envisaged under Rules 11 & 12 has nat been camplied hence the .orderpassed by the AddL Callectar is prima facie perverse, petitian allawed and the matter is remanded back ta the Add!. Callec- 1. Ie n ,e ,e 'a s. tar. Mahanlal Diwakar v. State .ofe.G., 2006(1) CGW 105. I Rule 13: Withdrawal .of petitian.-IIJ Mere filing .of an applicatian far withdrawal .of electian petitian will nat autamatically result inta withdrawal .ofelectian petitian. Can be withdrawn .onlywith the leave .ofthe specified .officer.This is a matter .ofcamman knawledge that in electians lat .ofpressure. threatening, maney and muscle pawer are emplayed and this sametimes resuits inta filing .ofa withdrawal applicatian in the electian petitian. Thus. a pawer is given ta the specified officer to examine the genuineness of such a request and if the said autharity cames ta the canclusian that in the facts and circumstances ,,'~ ,d Y 1- 'e ,d y ,h ,e 1.0 if it te 'e Ie v. ,e ,d Ie f "I! " I .ofthe case, such a leave cannat be granted, it has a pawer ta refuse the same. Lee.lawatiy. K[lnhaiyalql,;!011(4)1'.l;.!'~13,l_".2.o12{llJW ... , .. 33. [2[ See relative rule 13. Meena Singh'v. Prescribed Autharitlj.Cur1l- I Callectar. 1998 (2) MPW 309. 'Rule 21: Recaunt .ofv.otes.C.onsideratian.-Mere rejectian .ofan applicatian under Rule 80 filed by the petitianer is nat a sufficient ground far .ordering recaunt .of vates. Vidhyawati Lilhare v. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Of- ficer, Lanji, Balqghat, 2010(1) MPW 115 = 2010(4) MPHT 92 = 201O(2)JW29.. -... --.-- ---- ---.-.... -. Order .of recaunt.-11J An order of recount cannat be passed an mere asking. An issue shauld be framed, evidencebe recarded and the questian shouldbedecidedan goingthrough such an evidence.Secrecyofvates cannat be lightly revealed. Udaysingh v. Himmatsingh, 1999 (1) JLJ 200. [2]Recountofvotescannat be .orderedevenan consent. Secrecyofvating cannat be braken lightly. Gajanan v. Ramcharan, 1997 (II) MPWN 3. Result materially affected .or nat. same cases.-[lJ Facts sup • •9 .pressed, electi.on declared void.-The.nomination paper of a returned 'ca,ndidate itself i's round fuhave Deen'impr'ii]ierlY-acc'epted_oeeause'the returned candidate suppressed his someassets etc.Held,his result has been .obviouslym'aterially affected'therefore Ills electian praperly 'declared as vaid. Mehbaob Khan v. Lallu Bhai, AIR 2009 (NOe) 532 MP = 2008 (4) MPLJ,198 = 2008(3)JLJ 307 = 2008(5) MPHT 95. d. a J , [2JReturned candidate lady suppressed fact ofhaving<J.inechildren and declare 5 children, it would not have caused any disqualification to her, therefore the result of the election is not materially affected and the h. 1t (PAl176 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAMSWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.122 the pleadings. The verification at the bottom of the affidavit verifies contents of the affidavit to the extent of name of deponent, residence of the deponent am} filing of the petition. Thus it amounts to noncompliance of the mandatory requirement of Rule 5. Ram Das Singh v. Balran Singh, 2007(2) MPHT 58 (CG). Rule 6: See also comments under S.36. Rule 7: Deposit of security amount is essential.-Il] Fresh elec- tion petition filed by the petitioner by withdrawing the earlier petition. While filing the second election petition, security amount has to be deposited by the petitioner. Amount deposited with the first election petition cannot be treated as deposit of security for entertaining the second election petition. Election petition rightly dismissed by the Election Tribunal for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. Roopa Singh v. State ofM.P., 2012(2) MPW 435 = 2012(2) MPHT 502. 121The respondent NO.1has admittedly, deposiied a sum of Rs. 5001- with the Tahsildar, who is not a specified officer as defined under Rule 2(d). Deposit of the security amount is a mandatory requirement as held by the Supreme Court tn the case of M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande and Ors., 1983(2) SCC 473. The deposit ofthe security amount with any officer,other then the specified officer, may be Sub-ordinate Officer, does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules. Ram Das Singh v. Balran Singh, 2007(2) MPHT 58 (CG). Rule 8: Non-compliance of RUleid.ii'E:Iection PetitionO:[lj f"stie --- ofdefect of non-compliance ofthe rules can be taken up by the Election Tribunal at any stage and it is not incumbent upon the authority to do so only at the threshold. Bayulal Verrna v. Additional Collector, Chhindwara, 2009(4) MPW 548 = 2010(1) MPHT 477. [2] Non compliance with Rules 3, 4 or 7. Prescribed Authority if after hearing the petitioner finds non-compliance of Rules 3, 4 or 7, it has no choice but to dismiss the petition. Divisiya wi 0 Naresh Paraste v. Shanta wi 0 Narayan Singh Pusham, 2011(2) MPW 701 . .[3lProv;.sioil"areiiflinaatory.-(a) TheprovisionsofRules7-and-8are- mandatory. Where secunty amount was not deposited along with the election petition, such a petition is liable to be dismissed. Udaysingh v. Himmatsingh, 1999 (1)JLJ 200. (b) But in a case where deposit was not made along with the election petition but made subsequently before expiration ofthe period of limitation and also before cognizance of the matter was taken, the election petition does not suffer from a fatal defect. AIR 1986 MP 49 Disting. Ravl Thakur v. Shivshankar, A;lR 1997 MP 136. See also Kailashnarayan v. Namdar, 1996 JW 3111, (c)It is essential that an electionpetition shouldbe signed and verified. Further it is essential that it should accompanyas many copiesof such a petition as there are respondents. Udaysingh v.Himmatsingh, 1999(1)JLJ [ I, 200. . (d) Where deposit of security amount was not made along with election petition and the S.D.O. took cognizance ofit, directed recount e ' S. 122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADH1" 1993 (PA)175 dispute. The Election Tribunal erred in dismissing the election petition by holding that there is non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules. The impugned order passed by the Election Tlibunal set aside. Natihulal v. Shakuntalabai, 2011(2) MPW 424 = 2011(2) MPHT 153. J [5] Neither the requisite copies of the Election Petition were filed -nor they are signed. Non-Compliance of Rule 3 by the Election Petitioner. Election petition dismissed. Rakesh v. Returning OfflCer Pallchayat Nirvachan, 2012(4) MPW 458 = 2012(5) MPHT 1~4_ cr Rr. 3 & 8:Failure to file copiesofelectionpetition- Petition to be dismissed.-[l] Where in compliance with the provisions of rule 3, election petition did not accompany as many copies of the same as there were respondents, the requirement being mandatory. such a petition was liable to be dismissed under the provisions ofrule 8.ShivdhariLahhesar v.Jaduman Bishwanath, 1999 (1) MPLJ 291. [2] See also: Udaysingh v. Himmatsingh, 1999 (1) JLJ 200. [3]Petition should be attested by the election petitioner. In its absence the petition is liable to be dismissed. Attestation by advocatewouldnot save the petition. Omprahash Soni v.Ashokhumar, AlR 1996 MP 43. [4] Attested copies of documents supplied to respondents not signed by petitioner- Petition liable to be dismissed. Defect cannot be cured after. perjod oflilllitation, cAmolsinghv. HamirSing"" 19.96(1) MPWN122. ' .,. - . -[51-ElectIon petition not rejected.-Petitioner herself was present at the time of presentation of the election petition before the specified officer and her thumb impression was taken on the right hand side corner of the said order sheet. Merelybecause endorsement made in the order sheet is that the petition was presented by her Counsel, it cannot be construed that the election petitioner was not presented at the time of presentation of the election petition and that she has not presented the election petition. In fact, the election petitioner was present before the specified officer along-withber CollnsHwhenthe election petition was presented. That being so, compliance of Rule 3(1] of the Rules of 1995 having been made and onthis ground the election petition can not be rejected. KaUashi v. Bharos~ 2006(3) MPW 477 = 2006(3) MPHT 404. Rule 4: Where petitioner claims that he or any other person be declared elected in place of the returned candidate, he has to join only the contesting candidates as party and riot those whose nomination has been rejected or who Wittidrew his nomination. Harishonkar ~Su'Yavanshi v_-State of M.P., -1998 (2) Vidl:\i Bhaswar 225. Rule 5: Pleadings not verified.-Rule 5 prescribes that the election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC, for the verillcation of pleadings. In the present case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirement as prescribed under Rule 5(c)of the Rules, 1995. There is no verification of pleadings and the affidavit filed by the respondent NO.1does not disclose source of information contained in .. •• • 8.122 (PA)174 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 Ramswaroop u.Maharajsingh, 1997 (I) MPWN36. 19. Appeal and Revision.-Rules framed for election petitions etc. do not provide any.•.appeal or revision. Decision pronounced under Rule 23 has further been declared to be final under Rule 25.Hullllmchand u. Dheerji, 2001 (1) JLJ 229. 20. Comments under election petition Rules of 1995.-Comments under M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and DisqualificationFor Membership)Rules, 1995are as follows:- Rule 3: I' A. Requirements of Election Petition.-[lJ Extra copy of memorandum of Election Petition givento returned candidate/respondent No. 1 before Election Tribunal. It was not required to be signed and verified by the Election Petitioner. Natthulal v. Shakuntalabai. 2011(2) MPW 424 = 2011(2) MPHT 153. [21 Rule 3 only provides signing and attestation of copies filed along with the election petition. Election petition filedby the respondent was accepted by the authority in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 and thereafter notice on the said election petition was issued to the appellant. Nothing on record to establish that a signed and attested copy of the election petition was not sent to the appellant along with the notice. Appellant should have established this fact and as the best evidence which was available to the appellant was not produced by him. an adverSe iIlference has .rightlylJeen qrawr\ against I1irn,Addi, . tional copy. Le. an extra copy which was given to the counsel for the' appellant during the proceedings need not be signed and attested by the election petitioner as that is not the requirement of Rule 3. Shakuntalabai v. Nathulal.2011(3) MPW 119 = 2011(5) MPHT 35. B. Maintainability of petition.-[l] Election petition filed by respondent No. 6 was not duly verified and the security amount required to be deposited at the time of presentation of the petition. Petitioner not having complied with mandatory provisions of the Rules was not maintainable. Kana Manda! v. State of M.P., 2010(2) MPW 468 = 2010(3) MPHT 278: -- -_. , [2J Election Petition not presented by the election petitioner by presenting it herself or through an authorized advocate. Election petition dismissed in view of provisions of Rules 3, 8 and 21. Kamlesh Nut v. Commissioner, 2012(4) MPW 385 = 2012(5) MPHT 127. [3JCopies of the election petition served on the respondent did not bear the signatures ofthe petitioner, were not verified and did not bear attestation as required by Rule 3(2). Election Tribunal rightly dismissed the c!eclion petition. Bayulal Venna! v. Additional Collector, Chhindwara. 2009(4) MPW 548 = 2010(1) MPHT 477. [4JIf a party is having the best evidence in his power and possessimi he Is duty bound to produce il in the Court in order to resolve the controversy and that party shouid not place reliance on the abstract doctrine of onus of proof that it was no part of his duty to produce it. Respondent No. I sh,,"ld have filedthe copy ofelection petition served upon her along wi1II the summons in the court in order to resolve the •• • •• • .. . '. . S. 122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)173 any opinion about the improper rejection or reception of the votes but only with a view to enable him to form such an opinion, he had proceeded to pass the order directing production of the ballot papers and for reacting of the votes. An order ofrecount cannot be granted as a matter of course, which is to be resorted to only upon satisfaction that material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence justify. such an order. Kailashsingh v. Narayansingh, 1999 (1) JLJ 342. See also:Pushpendra Singh v. Padmakar, 1998 (1) JLJ 35l. [5]Recount ofvotes cannot be ordered even on consent. Secrecy ofvoting cannot be broken lightly. Gajanan v. Ramcharan, 1997 (II) MPWN 3. [6]Also see Gayatri Bai v. Alka Sharma, 1997 (I) MPWN 98. 16. Marking of ballot paper.-[l] Marking of ballot paper by mark other than the prescribed one- Vote is rendered void. Ravi Thakur v. Shivshankar, AIR 1997 MP 136. [2]Validity of ballot paper.-Putting of right symbol mark instead of cross mark -provision is directory & not mandatory.- Sub-rule 6(ii) of Rule 16 of M.P. Panchayat (Up-Sarpanch, President and Vice President) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 contemplates five category ofcases in which the ballot .undersuJj:ru"fepaper is held tobe(4)ofsaTd'-i-ules'iiiinvalid. Putting ofanyii-ofcbntempliitei:!intneother mark than the one.prescribed"category-for .---' . declaring a ballot paper as invalid. If only ma.rks are placed in a ballot paper in a manner to make it doubtful as to for which candidate the vote was intended to be given then the same. becomes invalid. The grounds contemplated for declaring a vote as invalid does not indicate that a vote cast by putting any mark other than the cross mark is invalid, that being so, the' requirement of putting cross mark is only directory in nature and not mandatory. Geeta Devi Yadav v. Archana, 2008 (1) MPLJ 261 = 2008(2) JLJ34. [31An extra symbol mark was printed ohthe ballot paper:'Held, when' ..._.. - " it does not affected the election substantially then the Tribunal wrongly declared the election of petitioner as void. Smt. Kala Bai v. State of M.P., 2006(4) MPHT 243. 17. Deficient amount of security deposited along with election petition- Before expiry of!imitation, deficiency made good- Petition cannot be rejected.- Where an election petition was presented without sufficient amount of security deposit but the deficiency was made good within the period 'prescribed for such presentatibn, the petition cannot be , ,dismissed on the ground of deficient seourity amount being deposited. AIR ~;_ 1957 SC 363 & AIR 1957 SC 444 Foll. Kailashnarayan u. Namdar, 1996 JLJ391. But where the full amount of security is not deposited, the.petition is Ie liable to be dismissed. Mohan v. Shankarlal, 1996 (I) MPWN 126. 18. Exparte order final.- Where the returned candidate after filing reply neither appeared nor adduced allYevidence nor sought to get ex parte order set aside, the order becomes final and cannot be challenged. " . ,. • • 8.122 ; i (PA) 172 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 error, If proof is furnished of some errors in respect of some ballot papers, scrutiny and recount cannot be limited to those ballot papers only. In Ha~3bury's Laws of England it is observed that prima facie proof of error complained of must be given by the election petitioner and it must further be shown that the errors are ofsuch magnitude that the result ofthe election sofar asJt affects the returned candidate is materially affected, then recount is directed. The Supreme Court, in AIR 1975 SC 283, has said, "recount can be ordered where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality are founded are pleaded adequately in the election petition, (ii) the CourtfI'ribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. If the order ofrecount is not in accordance with the law and on the basis ofthe material as required unner the law tilting of election result on account of the recount, cannot be a ground for maintaining the order of recount and thereby declaration ofthe result. Order ofrecount by Tribunal and on basis of recount order of setting aside election held not justified. Bahoranlal v. Ganeshprasad, AIR 1999 MP 7. See also:Suman Santoshkumar Patel u.Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap, 1999 (1) MPLJ88. '[3]InAIR1989SC 640,Para'13'itis observed as follows,- . "The settled position oflaw is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hind sight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation ofthe safety ofthe ballot is a sacrosanct principle which camiot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right ofa defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy ofthe ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests ofjustice, a Tribunal or Could should not order the recount of votes.'" In the instant case there was nothing beyond the pleading ofthe parties on record to enable the specified officer to form an opinion as required by Rule 21 of the Rules that there was in fact an improper acceptance or rejection of the votes or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote which was void. In fact the specified officer has proceeded to order the recount merely to ascertain whether or not the allegations contained in the election petition with regard to the improper rejection or reception ofthe votes were true or not. This clearly indicates that the specified officer had not formed - . , , ~". •. IfL I S.122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHl., 1993 (PA)l71 a concise statement of material facts and clear evidence in support of the facts pleaded. Small margin ofvictory by itself is not a ground for ordering recount. A roving and fishing inquiry is not permissible while directing recount of votes. The requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers has to be kept in mind before directing a recount. The requisites for ordering re-count are a prima facie case and pleading ofmaterial facts detailing the irregularities in counting of votes. Birjha Bai v. State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPLJ 591 ~ 2008(1) MPHT 203 ••AIR 2008 (NOe) 2306 MP[DB]. - r r [8] Recounting order was not proper since the Tribunal failed to ap- preciate factual sc.enarioin proper perspective. Further more, delegation of power of recount to a Committee and non. verification of ballot papersby Tribunal itself, is illegal and impermissible in absence ofany such provision. Smt. Sampat Devi v. S.D.a. cum Prescribed Authority Niwadi, Tikamgarh, AII~ 2007 (NOC) 2652 MP = 2007(3) MPHT 462 = 2007(3) JLJ 301 [DB]. [9]Recounting of votes and invalidation ofvotes.-As far as advert. ing into the merit with regard torecounting ofvotes and invalidation ofvotes are concerned, these questions could be decide only after issues are framed and evidence is recorded. Ravindra Singh v.SDa cum PrescribedAuthority, Datia. 2006(3) MPLJ 570 = 2006(3) MPHT 150. [10] See also: Ramavtar Budhouwa v. Smt. Susheela Singh, 2007(1) JLJ 54; Rafik Kiian-v.cS.D.G:Tuni'.Pres.-Authority;: 2007(3) -.J1i;r2if4;-'---'C:'C -::: ::: c-. Ramavlar Budhouwa v. Sml. Susheela Singh, 2007(1) JLJ 54; Rooprani (Sml.) v. Sub-Divisional affic~r, Damoh, 2007(3)-JLJ 173. -I ,. ,'- [11] Recounting of votes in panchayat election.-In an election petition before the Tribunal, there was no allegation whatsoever that during the process of initial counting there was non-supply of adequate light and there was illegality in the counting of votes on that score. Filing of an application for recount does not necessarily mean that the election petitioner can ask for recount of votes before the Tribunal on the ground 'that his a.pplicati<mfor recbuntWa:s Mt-enterta.ined: There-nastb-be--a.:iY- ------ imperative necessity and a foundation has to be made by bringing adequate material on record and adducing cogent evidence. There was nothing in evidence that irregularities or illegalities committed by the Returning __ Officer. In the absence ofsuch material, the election Tribunal had fallen into gross error by directing recounting of votes. AIR 1997 se 3072, AIR 1964 se 1249, AIR 1966 se 773, AIR 1972se 1251,AIR 1973 se 215, AIR 1975 se 283, 376 & 701, AIR 1980 SC 200, AIR 1984 se 396, AIR 1993 se 3137, -(1999) 4 SCC 508, (2000) 8 sce 355 & (2001) 3 SCC 81, ReI. Chandrawati v..'l!ijay.II.ajkul]lari, 20()2"(;l)MPL.J 7"=200$.J2) J.LJ232. 15. Order of recount. Order made on the result of illegal order of reconnt liable to beset aside .•[l] In AIR 1982 Supreme eourt.1569, it is observed that when a petition is for relief of scrutiny and recount on the allegation of misconduct, the petitioner has to offer prima facie proof of errors in counting and if errors in counting are prima facie established a recount can be ordered. If the allegation is of improper rejection of valid votes which is covered by the broad spectrum of scrutiny and recount because of misconduct, petitioner must furnish prima facie proof of such \ (PA)l70 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.122 \:I,'hichit must discharge in accordance with law. Asim Saha v. Collector, Kunkel', 2001 (l) MPHT 6 (CG). I' [4J Recounting of votes- Permissibility.-The difference of votes polled by the winning candidate and the one who lost was of one vote only. It was contended by the candidate who lost that her legal votes were rejected, henee order of recounting by the Sub- Divisional Officer is quite quito proper and he has done justice in the cause. Ramrati v, S.D,a., Sidhi, :l005 (3) MPLJ 101. , , ,, ii 15J Uccounting order proper ..(i) The pleadings and proof in the matter of recount have relevance for the purpose ofdetermining the question of jurisdiction to permit or not to permit recount. Since the polling and counting both performed in absence of sufficient light therefore recounting order was proper. Rajesh Kumar Banshlwr v. Malti Parmar, AIR 2009 (NOC) 751 (M.P.) = 2009(2) MPHT 391 = 2008 (4) MPLJ 375 = 2009(1) MPWN 11. See also: Ramavtar Budhouwu v. Smt. Susheela Singh, 2007(1) JLJ 54. I I (ii) Difference of votes was only 17. Electricity failed twice and votes w€~recounted in candle light. Sufficient circumstances to order for recount. Rakib Mohammad v. District Collector, AIR 2003 MP 39=2002 (3) MPLJ 415=2002 (5) MPHT 487 (DB). (iii) In counting, difference 'ofvotes was only one, allegations made that valid votes were rejected and prayer for recounting made, petitioner objected thatelec~ionpetition,not prop.erly verified but the S.D.O. found i(properly verified. Held, that recounting order was -pl'oj:ie-Fa-iter conslderfng-evidence" on record. No interference called for. Ram Rati v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sidhi, 2005(4) MPHT 74 = 2005(3) JLJ 48. [6J In ex parte proceedings recounting order by tribunal.-No issue framed by the Election Tribunal because the proceedings were ex parte still Tribunal recorded evidence and found that earlier two applications for recounting before Presiding Officer and before Returning Officer not considered and no order was issued on both applications. Result of counting of voles was also equal and matter decided by drawing lots. Held, no fault in recounting oi.der by Tribunal. Shivan Lal v. S.D.a: (Rev.), Multdi, 2006(4) .~ ffIr-aT 401. • 17] Recounting order not permissible.-(i) Tribunal directed recounting of votes for the reason that volume of rejected votes was very high and 2173 votes were rejected. Held, order ofrecounting ofvotes is not permissible only for the reason of high volume of rejected votes when there is no specific irregularity in the counting is pointed out and unless no sound legal reasons found. Kamlesh Bai v. Upper Commr. Bhopal & Hoshangabad, 2008 (2) MPLJ 558 = 2008(2) MPHT 466 = AIR 2008;(NOC) 1318 MP. (ii) The petitioner not stated about any irregularity or illegality in respect of poling in booth NO.20. Nothing has be.en brought on record. The questionlhat emerges for consideration is whether there is adequate pleadings and ample evidence to direct recount of votes. An order for recount cannot be ordered as a matter of course unless the electipn petition had laid the foundation and there is clinching evidence to support the case set up by the election petitioner. An eleCtion petition seeking a recount must contain •• • • • • • • • S.122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)169 MPLJ 121=2002 (3) MPHT 547. 12. Aggrieved person.-Locus standi ofa person to challenge the order on an election petition, passed by the election tribunal stands on a different pedestal than that of public interest litigation. It is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. The meaning ofthe expression 'person aggrieved' may vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, normally 'personal aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced, which has wrongfully deprived him ofsomething or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. In the instant case no decision against the petitioner had been pronounced and he was not deprived of anything. He wa~not a candidate in the election. The petitioner did not appear at the trial ofthe election petition although he claimed to be an election agent of the returned candidate and woke up for the first time ) by filing this writ petition. Therefore,the petitioner was not a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. Bhushan Ramlal Kashyap v. S.D.O.Janjgir, 1998 (2) MPLJ 710. 13. Setting aside of election.-!l] Election once held can be set aside by an election petition only which is allowed on its merits. Udaysingh v. Himmat Singh, 1999 (1) JLJ 200. . [2] Di.squalificati!>n Sl!pp"<ilssect.,Respondent.}la,l._was.-pr9ceede~t .. under S. 40 of the Act and was removed from the post ofSarpandibecause he did not pay the dues recoverable by the Panchayat. He did not filed the nomination form indicating in the declaration that the money was due to him. Subsequently, he contested an election ofJila Panchayat by suppressing the fact ofhis disqualification and was elected. Held, it is mentioned in the provisions of S.36 itself that he is not entitled to hold the office as he was not eligible to contest the election. When the fact is absolutely tell.tale and clear then it does not require any inquiry. His election therefore is declared illegal. AIR 1999 se 1723 and AIR 2003 se 2128 Relied. Suresh Choudhary v Atarlal Verma; 2006(3) MPLJ 506 = 2006(3)MPHT 213. _.. 14. Election petition-Recount of votes.-[ 1) To make out a case seeking direction for recount. the facts must be pleaded and it should be supported by material particulars. Until & unless prima facie satisfaction of the Court is recorded, secrecy of the ballot papers ought to be maintained. Merely on vague allegations recount can not be directed. Ganesh Ram Gayan v. Bagdiram, 2013(2) MPW 147 = ILR 2013 MP 1793. . [2) Held, mere rejection of an applica~on under Rule 80 of NirvaeJian' Niyani filed' by -the petitioner'i,r nota' sufficient ground' for ordering recount of votes. Vidhyawati Lilhare v. Sub-Divisional Officer- , . 'cum-Ptescribec1"Offrcer. LartA'BalagMt; 2010(1) MPW 115'= 2010(4) MPHT 92 = 2010(2) JLJ 29. . [3]When a plea is.accepted by the Election Tribunal regarding rejection or acceptance of certain votes, then it is the paramount duty rather pious duty of the Tribunal to itself count and recount the votes. The power to recount cannot be delegated to third parties as it is the duty ofthe Tribunal (PAlI6S PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM G1!AMSWARAJ ADHl., 1993 8.122 the petitioner in writ petition such as seeking declaration as duly elected and claiming right to function as such. Sugnabai v. Election Officer, 1996 JLJ 48=1996 MPLJ 134. 9. Nomination paper rejected. Remedy.- Where any nomination paper is rejected by.the Returning Officer under Rule 35, his order is final subject to revision, if any, under rule 36. The Election Commission has no jurisdiction to review' such an order either on any application or suo motu. The remedy lies in an election petition only under the provisions of this section. State Election Commission M.P. v. Ras Bihari, 1995 JLJ 651=AIR 1995 MP 245 (DB). 10. Petition not attested by election petitioner. Effect.-[I] Where election petition was not attested by the petitioner as required by sub-rule (2), the provision of the rule being mandatory, failure would lead to summary dismissal of election petition. Attestation by Advocate would not save the petitioner. Dr. Omprakash Soni v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava, AIR 1996 MP43. [2]The provisions are mandatory. Attested copies ofdocuments supplied to respondents not signed by petitioner. Petition liable to be dismissed. Defect cannot be cured after expiry of period of limitation. Amolsingh v. Hameersingh, 1996 (I) MPWN 122. [3] Petition properly attested.-(a) Aperusal ofthe copy ofthe election petition which was accompanied with the petition and was supplied to the ,petitioner, reveakthat on each and eyery page the third respondent-has put, her signature. In the circumstances, mere non-mention of'true copy' would . not be sufficient to hold that the Rule 3(2) ofthe Rules has not been complied with. Ku. Parwati Bai Thakur v. State of M.P., 2007(3) MPHT 63. (b) Photo copy of petition supplied to the respondent was signed by the petitioner but not mentioned words "attested true copy" held it is substantial compliance of Rule 3(2) and not liable to dismiss under Rule 8. Mrs. Indira Singh v. Mrs. Anjana Sharma, 2006(4) MPHT 152. (c) Signatures found but "true copies"or "attested as true copy not mentioned held it is proper presentation ..subba Rao v. Member, Election Tribunal, AIR 1964'SC 1027 & Rameshwar Dayal Arale v. Munna Singh Bhadoria, AIR 1992 MP 161 [Relied on.] Ravindra Singh v. SDO cum Prescribed Authority, Datia, 2006(3) MPLJ 570 = 2006(3) MPHT 150. 11. Trial of petition.-[l] Trial of election petition should be by some judicial officer or by an officer higher than the Sub- Divisional Officer. The specified Officer should have minimum knowledge of election law. Udaysingh v. Himmat Singh, 1999 (1) JLJ 200. [2] Age of returned candidate cannot be,decided solely on the basis of the age shown in the electoral roll. Other evidence adduced should also be considered. Fakhruddin v. Fazal Khan, 1997 (I) MPWN 145. [3] Election petition and written statement thereto may be allowed to be amended. Parties should be given full opportunity to plead and prove their case. Chhaganlal v. Ramchandra, 1998 (1) Vidhi Bhaswar 243. [4]Framing ofissues and recording ofevidence are necessary for proper adjudication of an election petition. Kalka Prasad v. Ramji/al, 2002 (3) • • • • . . • • S. 122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)167 tion, amendment proposed and election petitioner moved an application seeking leave tojoin the two candidates ofthe election Respondents NO.2& 3. Since the limitation of30 days from the date ofresult ofelection has Men prescribed, an Election Petition against the aforesaid persons Resp. NO.2 & 3 herein would be barred by limitation on the date ofpresentation ofthe application for their joinder by way of amendment. Mohammad [sha v. Vasl/dea, 2008 (l) MPLJ 547. [2] Change of relief 01' something new, by amendment applica. tion. not provcd ..Petitioner seeking amendment of material particulars so that correct particulars of election petition may come into notice of the Tribunal. Relief which was prayed initially by petitioner was that "the election petition filed by the petitioner be allowed, recounting be made and election petitioner be declared as elected member". It cannot be said that it is a change of relief or something new has been prayed. In initial prayer, declaration of election of respondent as void was implied. By amendment prayer was made specifically. Order allowing application for amendment is therefore proper. Ajay Mar/wm v. Addl. Commissioner, AIR 2007 (NOC) 829MP. 8. Writ Petition.-[I] Availability of an alternative is not always an absolute bar for maintainability ofwrit petition. Sukhnandan Patel v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPLJ 220=2003 (2) JLJ 74. [2JOrder of Single Judge against petitioner amply supported by pleadings anq- evidence anTe_cord. Order confirmed. -Ram.nivas v..Pooran, AIR-_2002 MP 31=2001 (3) MPHT 347 (DB). [3]In election ofVice-President of Zilla Panchayat, where nomination paper ofthe petitioner was not accepted, he should have agitated the matter by filing election petition to the Tribunal. Writ petition dismissed. Nanhe Bhai Singh v. State of M.P., 2002 (4) MPLJ 161. [4] In an election to the post of Vice-President in reserved category of r . l, Scheduled Tribe, there was serious dispute with regard to social status of returned candidate. No such objectionwas raised by the other candidate at the time scrutiny of nomination paper before the Election Officer. Proper remedy was to approach the Election Tribunal to determine social status of the returned candidate. No writ lies. Ashok Kumar Rawat v. State of M.P., 2002 (4) MPLJ 446=2002 (4) MPHT 246. [4A] Direct writ petition when justified.-Despite alternative remedy a writ petition may be preferred directly :- (il where the Court or the Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction; or (iij when a writ is for enforcement"offundamental rights; or (iii) there is a violation of principal oDnatural justice; or (Iv) where vires' of the Act is in question. . .'PW !l1flJl.q!'t9ry.3't~Il.t-,~f.theprQ".isi.oJlspuld!ie.r.!'lfiX~<I9I).lyifjt co_uld be shown that no prejudice was caused to the party complaining. Ramesh Soni v. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPLJ 207. 15] No challenge to election by writ petition.- The section contemplates challenge of election only by election petition. It cannot be chall~nged by way of a writ petition and as such no relief can be claimed by • ., (PA)166 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 S.122 Petition liable to be dismissed. Rama Banjara v. Kanchhedilal, 1998 (I) MPWN63. [2] Where petitioner claims that he or any other person be declared elected in place ofthe returned candidate, he has to join only the contesting candidates as party and not those whose nomination has been rejected or who withdrew his nomination. Harishallkar Suryavanshi v. State of M.P., 1998 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 225, [3) Apart from other prayers, where the petitioner also prays in the petition that he be declared elected, it is not necessary that such candidates who withdrew their nominations be also made party to such petition. Devram v. Sadu, 1996 JLJ 240. 6-A. Burden of proof.-[J) It is settled law that where the election petition is filed by the election petitioner contending that the returned candidate was disqualified to be elected on the ground that she was below the prescribed age, it is for the election petitioner to establish that the returned candidate was disqualified and not the candidate. BasantiBai v. PremwatiBai, 2012(4) MPW 257 = 2012(5) MPHT 386. [21Contents of petition & its proving.-Burden to prove case on the basis of proper pleading is on the election petitioner. Impugned order of Tribunal passed in mechanical manner declaring the election is invalid and directing for recounting ofvotes set aside. If the contents ofelection petition are examined injustaposition to the evidence led by the election petitioner, it would be clear that th~ pleadings are not supported with the high-degree of evidence which is required in an election matter to support the pleading. The burden to prove the case is always on the shoulder of the election petitioner. If election petitioner fails to prove the allegation to the hilt on the basis ofproper pleadings and evidence of a very high degree, merely on the basis of suspicion, election cannot be declared illegal and sacrosancity ofvotes cannot be permitted to be destroyed. In this view ofthe matter, the method adopted by the Election Tribunal in shifting the burden of proof on the present petitioner cannot be upheld. The Tribunal in a mechanical manner declared the election as invalid and directed for recounting. The said order is set aside and tne-petition is allowed. Hanuman Singh V.State afM.P., 2012(3) MPLJ 191 = 2012(5) MPHT 162. 7. Remedy when available.-(l) The remedy of filing election petition is available only when the election is notified. Sugnabai v. Election Officer, 1996 JLJ 48 = 1996 MPLJ 134. (2) Petition not necessary when person disqualified for the post of office bearer.-Respondent NO.7disqualified for being office bearer of Panchayat on ground ofnon disclosure that !:Iehad been convicted for offence of murder, this fact not denied by him. He taised objection that he could be disqualified only by way of filing election petition. Held, that Article 243-0 cannot destroy basic structure ofjudicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. High Court is not prevented from declaration as to qualification under Article 226. Election ofmember set aside. Ramkumar v. State of M.P., 2013 (4) MPLJ 207 = 2013(4) MPHT 161 = ILR 2013 MP 1578. 7-A. Amendment application.-!I] Seeking amendment for joinder Barred by limitation.-After 3 months from the date of Notification of elec- . . • • • • • .I PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAMSWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)165 S. 122 totally inconsequential. Rejection of nomination paper is a ground for filing election petition under Rule 21 of the rules but said rule has to succumb to the letter and spirit of language employed under S.122 of the Act which bars filing of election petition in absence of notification. When the Act does not permit filing of petition, rule renders no assistance to the person aggrieved. Ajab Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 2001 M.P. 296=2001 (3) MPLJ 251=2001 (4) MPHT461. [3]Procedure to be followed by S.D.O. if petition is incompetent • .-When an election petition was not duly constituted is filed before the S.D.O. and the S.D.a. finds that the question raised in the petition can be conveniently decided by a higher officer in exercise of the powers under S.36 then a reference certainly could be made by him because S.36(3) clearly provides that the Collector may give his decision either on an application made to him by any person or on his own motion. Bhllvaneshwar Prasad v. State of M.P., 2009(1) MPLJ 434 (DB) = AIR 2009 (NOC) 242'MP (DB) = 2008(5) MPHT 72 (DB) = 2008(3) JLJ 293. [4] Invalid Dismissal.-On the ground of pre-mature and election has not been notified.-Counting of votes took place and results declared there were irregularities in it. The SDO did not care to find out as to when and in what manner the result was declared and election was notified. He simply mentioned.in the order that as the. election is not notified and the election . petitionfiled before 'notificationl. pre:matu're: There is no enquirybythe . election tribunal with regard to the fact as towhen and in what manner the election results and the election itself was notified. Held that the SDO not considered all questions and has dismissed the petition even without indicating a date when the election is said to have been notified and the results were declared. Instead ofconsidering the question properly after conducting proper enquiry action taken for dismissing the election petition only on the ground that election in not notified was not proper. The order of SDO has to be quashed. Rauindra Singh u. SDO cum Prescribed Authority, Datia, 2006(3) MPW 570 =2006(3) MPHT 150.- .... .- [5]Election petition not maintainable when vacancy was filled up as provided under S.38.-No election petition is maintainable when a vacancy is filled up in accordance with the provisions contained in 8.38. Order passed by specified officer setting aside the election of Sarpanch under 8.38 was set aside by Collector in exercise of his revisional powers. Order ofCollector not bad in law. Shiulwmar u. Collector,Mandla, 2001 (2) MPLJ 464 = AIR 2001 NOC 107 MP = 2001 (5) MPHT 619. [61 Petiti()nJncompetent.-Where a petition is held to be incompetent, any finding given in such petition cannot-be.held.to'be final. Anjana Mulkalwar u. State of M.P., 1998 (2) JLJ 328. 5.A. Disposal of Election Petition.-In sub-section (3) it is provided that petition shall be enquired into or disposed of within six months according to such pro~edure as may be prescribed. 6. Parties to petition.-[l] Petitioner claiming to have been duly elected and seeking such declaration against the returned candidate in an election petition. He did not join other candidates as parties to such a petition. • • .' . • • S. 122 (PA)164 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAMSWARAJ ADHI., 1993 [l-C] There is a satutory bar provided in admitting election petition beyond period of30 days from the date ofnotification, Provisions ofSection 5 Limitaion Act are not applicable in such proceedings. Order admitting petition condoning delay on extraneous consideration without there being any explanation forthe delay wouldbe contrary to statutory provisions and cannot be sustained. Kalka Prasad v. Ramjilal, 2002 (3) MPLJ 121=2002 (3) MPHT 547. , [2] The limitation prescribed for filing of election petition cannot be extended. Provisions ofLimitation Act,including its section 5, do not apply to such presentation. Kishan Singh v. Harveer Singh, 1998 (I) MPWN 83. 4-A.Scope ofS.122.-Aperusal ofS.122 ofthe Actshows that a complete codehas been provided for challenging of an election by way of an election petition. Satya Narayan v. Addl. Commr., Ujjain, 2008 (1) MPLJ 505 = AIR 2008 (NOC) 1032 MP. 5. Election petition: [11 Election petition towards reserved seat.-The seat was reserved for S.T. whereas the petitioner belonged to O.B.C. Case of petitioner was that petitioner was Sahu by caste and after leaving her husband who was Sahu by caste had started living with a person who was Panika by caste. Held, it is clear from affidavit filed by petitioner before High Court descrtbed her as Savitri Sahu @ Supamakha w/o . .Shivlal P"nika. Though, an explanation given by the learned counsel thatitwas the Il'listake of tIie counsel; that a wrong afftdavitwas 'filed,.,. However, there is no matertal on record ~o establish that any action has been taken against the respective counsel for their alleged mistake in allegedly changing the identity of the petitioner. In absence whereof, it has to be accepted that Savitrt Panika and Savitri Sahu @ Suparnakh" are one and same. Therefore findings given by prescribed authority that petitioner belongs to Sahu caste cannot be faulted with. Savitri Panika v. State of M.P., ILR 2013 MP 2370. [I-A]Election Petition filed byunauthorizedperson.-Petitionfiled by the petitioner's Advocate who was not specifically authorised to .doso, . election petition liable to be dismissed. Kamlesh Nut v. Commr., Revenue Division, Shahdol, 2013(1) MPWN 6. [2] Election petition- Maintainability- Rule 90 of Nirvachan Niyam-Rejection of nomination paper of a single candidate-No notification-Held petition not maintainable.- Where there was solitary candidate for election to officeofSarpanchJPanch and his nomination form was rejected, there could be no election petition as there would be no declaration ofresult ofelection and conditions prescribed by rule 90 would not be fulfilled. Once the nOmination papers:were rejected there was no election and there was no 'returned candidate. In absence of returned candidate there could not have been declaration of the result and as a consequence thereof there co;'ld ~ot have' been notification as envisaged under rule 90 of Nirvachan Niyam, 1995.In absence of the notification as per law laid downin Rule 90,the application beforethe specifiedofficerwas incompetent. It is well settled in law that when a proceeding is incompetent "nd not maintainable before the authority the findings given by him are • • • • S.122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)163 [31Rule 9 does no",here say that the copy required to be verified under Rule 3 is only to be served upon the respondenl>. Ho",ever a juxtapose reading of Rule 9 ",ith Rule 3 ",e must observe that the copies submitted under Rule 3(2) must only be supplied to the party/respondent after they put their appearance in the Court. Lata Patte v. Smt ..Kamlesh Gautwn, 2008 (1) MPLJ 388. [4] As far as the presentation of election petition is concerned, provisions of relevant rules 3 and 8 are quite clear. An election petition under rule 3(1) should be presented by the petitioner petsonally or by a petson duly authorised in ",riting in this behalf by the petitioner. Where a petition ",as presented by the la"'yer of the petitioner ",ho "'as not so authorised; presentation of petition is not proper and under the provisions of rule 8, such a petition is liable to be dismissed. Suman Santoshhumar Patel u.Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap, 1999 (1) MPLJ 88. [51A voter of the constituency can alone file an election petition. But where petition, is neither filed in time and security also is not furnished, such a petition cannot be entertained. Anjana A1uUwwar v. Bhanu Yadav, 1997 (2) JLJ 78. \ [6J Verification of Election petition- Substantial compliance.The object of verifying the pleading is fix on the party responsibility about truthfulness of its contents and the same Rule has been made applicable to the election petition filed.under S.122 ofthePanchayat Act.\Vhen thefacts. are v;,;.ifiea by aflidavit;thenthe rule has been:substantiaily compiled'with. Ramrati v. S.D.a., Sidhi, 2005 (3) MPLJ 10,1. 4. Limitation.-[ll Effective date for starting limitation as prescribed in section 122(2) is the date of the notification of the election. Election petition cannot be admitted beyond the period of thirty days from the notification of the election. Only consequence ilf causing the delay in filing the election petition would be its dismissal. Mumbi Bai v. State of M.P., 2012(2) MPW 456 = 2012(2) MPHT 305. • [I-A] Election petitioll barred by limitation.-Filing of the election .. _ . petition after expiry of thirty days is not maintainable being barred by limitation and even if the S.D.D. issued notices to the parties, the same would not confer any jurisdiction upon him because he has no jurisdiction to condone the delay and proceed further with the matter.Bhuvaneshwar Prasad v. State of M.P., 2009(1) MPLJ 434 (DB) = AIR 2009 (NOC) 242 MP (DB) = 2008(5) MPHT 72 (DB) = 2008(3) JLJ 293. [l-BJ An election petition was maintainable within a period of30 days. Elections had been held on January 29,2005. The election petitioner filed .the electipn Retition on February 28, 2005. ¥ per the provisions of the fJen-eralClauses Act;tIie daydn whicn the eleCtions were held'in January 29, had to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. Thus, the .\l.leejion petition had been' filM -within the .period of limitation . Even otherwise it is fairly informed by the learned counsel for the parties that February 27, 2005 was a Sunday. Thus, the election petition had been filed on next opening day Le. February 28, 2005. Satya Narayan v.Addl. Commr., Vjjqin, 2008 (1) MPLJ 505 = AIR 2008 (NOC) 1032 MP. '''' See also: Mohammad [sha v. Vasudeo, 2008 (1) MPLJ 547. , ,8.122 (PA)162 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 1. General interpretation.-[I] It has been specifically provided that an election conducted or contested under the provisions of this Act can be called in question only by an election petition filed in the prescribed manner under this Act and none else. It is also provided that such an election petition shall be presented to the following officers:- (i) Sub-Divisional Officer in the case of Gram Panchayat; (ii) Collector in the case ofJ anpad Panchayat; and (iii) Divisional Commissioner in the case of Zila Panchayat. [2]Sub-section (2)makes provision to the effect that the election petition as aforesaid should be presented within 30 (Thirty) days ofthe election being notified. [2-A]By amending Act 26 of 2012, w.e.f. 26-5-2012, it is provided that such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of within six months according to such procedure as may be prescribed. [3]Notification ofelection.-(l) Rule 90 ofthe Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 makes provision for notification of election. It also prescribes the manner in which such election is to he notified. (2) Rule 47 does not relate to notification of election but it relates to dechirationof candidate elected un\lpposed. Pramilabai v.'Sub.Divisional Officer, Bareli, 1999 (2) MPLJ 209. (3)The limitation of 30 days for filing election petition would start from the date when such election is notified in the manner prescribed by Rule 90. lt is not to be reckoned from the date of declaration of result either of an unopposed candidate or that of a candidate who won in the_contest. Pramilabai v. Sub- Divisional Officer, Bareli, 1999 (2) MPLJ 209.. 2. Jurisdiction to hear election petition.-In the case of Janpad Panchayat, election petition is.to.be heard by.the Collector. He can transfer the same for hearing to the Additional Collector. Rajhumar Shivhare v. Anand Kumar, 2000 (2) JLJ 121=2000 (3) MPLJ 391. 3. Presentation of election.. petition. -[II Invalid presentation.-The -- - - - - election petition was not presented by the petitioner but it was filed by somebody else. Therefore, a election petition presented contrary to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is not maintainable and has to be dismissed in view of the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 of the Rules, i995. Geeta Devi Yadav v. Archana, 2008 (1) MPW 261 = 2008(2) JW34. ; [i-A] Vakalatnama does not authorise an Advocate in writing to present .the election petition before the Competent Authority. Urmila Devi v.Return- ing Officer (Panchayat), 2008(4) MPHT 410 = 2008(3) MPWN 92. [2] Enclosement of receipt not compulsory in each case.-Rule 7 does not say that an election petitioner is bound and obliged to file a copyof the receipt along with the election petition. If the Presiding Officer receives the security cost in cash and does not issue the receipt immediately thereafter, then such a lapse or inaction on-the part of the Presiding Officer or his office, election petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. Lata Patel v. Smt. Kamlesh Gautam, 2008 (1) MPI.J 388. l S.122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHl .. 1993 (PA)161 (i) in case of I[Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha) to the SubDivisional Officer(Revenu~; (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise. f I L ) I, (2)Nosuch petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election 2[xx xl in question was notified. 3[(3)Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of within six months according to such procedure as may be prescribed.] COMMENTARY SYNOPSIS 1. General interpretation. 2. Jurisdiction to hear election petition. 3. Presentation of election petition. 4. Limitation. 4-A. Scope of S.122. 5. Election Petition. S,A. DisposaL()fEJectionPetition... ---C'--_'-- .. __.,0 _ 6. Parties to petition. 6-A. Burden of proof. 7. Remedy when available. 7-A. Amendment application. 8.. Writ petition . .9. Nomination paper rejected-Remedy. 10. Petition not attested by election petitioner-Effect. II. Trial of petition. 12. Aggri~v~dP~[~OIJ, ." _ 13. Setting aside of election. 14. Election petition-Recount of votes. 15. Order of recount-Order made on the result of illegal order of recoi..mrIiable to be set aside. 16. Marking of ballot paper. 17. Deficient amount of security deposited along with election peti- tion-Before expiry of limitation, deficiency made good- Petition . cannot be rejected. 18. Exparte.orde<-finai. 19. "AppeaLi'nd Revision, -----------.- ----- ----- ------ --- :rl:-1{u!es"':'::20. Comments•...-..•._""""'•.,...--,-,-under Election !';;petilion-, •••• - -~Rules••• ". of0-"-1995.•••• I 2 3 Subs. by M.P.Act 3 of2001, w.e.f.26-1-2001. Omitted by M.P. 26 of 1994 130.5.941. Subs. by M,P. Act No. 26 of 2012 [23-5-2012]'which was as follows:MSuchpetition shall be enquired into or c:llsposed of according to such procedure as may be prescribed." . (PA)160 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.118 118. Records of 1[Panchayat or Gram Sabha) open to inspection.- Subject to rules made under this Act and on the payment <if such fee as may be prescribed the records of 2(Par'J.chayat or Gram Sabha] or any committee thereof, shall be open to inspection to such person, as may desire it and certified copies thereof shall be given to such person as may apply for them on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. Rules:- The State Government has made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules given separately. "Inspection of Records and Copies Rules, 1995". 119.' Method for serving documents,' etc.-Save as otherwise provided in this Act the service of any notice or other documents under this Act or under any rule, byelaw or order made thereunder shall be effected in the prescribed manner. Rules:- The State Government has made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules given separately. "Panchayat (Method of Service of Notice and Document) Rules, 1995" 120. Entry for purposes of Act. etc.-it shall be lawful for the office. bearers of a 3[Panchayat or Gram .S"bl),,] 9r officer authoris.ed by such 4[Pancliayat or Gram Sabha] In this behalftci enter in connection WIlli. any work relating to the 51Panchayat or Oram SabhaJ between sunrise and sunset with such assistants as he may deem necessary into and upon any building or land: Provided that no building or land which may be occupied at the time shall be entered unless a written. notice of twenty four hours has been given to the occupants: Provided further that, in the case of building used as human .dwelling due regard shall be paid to the sociaLand religious customs. of the occupiers. 121. Bar to interference by CourtsiiJ. electoral matters.-The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats in such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under this Act shall not be called in question in any Court. , 122. Election petition. -(I) An election 6[xx xJ under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in .the prescribed manner:- 1 Subs.hyM.P.Act3 of2001.w.e.f.26-1-2001. 2 Subs. by M.P.Act3 of2001, w.e.f.26-1~2001. '3 Subs.byM.P.Act3 of2001.w.e.f.26-1-2001. 4 Subs.byM.P.Act3 of2001.w.e.f.26-1-2001.. 5 Subs.byM.P.Act3 of2001,w.e.f.26-1-2001. 6 OmittedbyM.P.26of1994130.5.94J. . I \ • • • S.117 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)159 sub-section (1)or divert such land to a purpose other than the purpose for which it has been acquired. 114. Central Government or State Government not to obtain licence or permission.-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any ruies or byelaws made thereunder the Centrai Government or State Government shall not Derequired to obtain any permission or licence in respect of any property of such Government or any place in occupation or under the control of such Government. 115. Power of Panchayat to borrow money.-Subject to the restriction contained in any enactment for the time being in force relating to raising of loans by local authorities a Panchayat may. with the previous sanction of the State Government raise a loan for carrying out the purposes of this Act: Provided that nothing contained in the Local Authorities Loans Act. 1914'(No. 2 of 1914) or the Madhya Bharat LocaiAuthorities Loans Act Samvat. 2007 (1950) (No. 64 of 1950) and rules made under the aforesaid enactment shall apply in respect of loan taken from the Government or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force and which is in receipt of a grant from the State Government. Rules:- The State Government has made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rulesgivensepatately," . .. -.. c , cc.-., .. c, ..c - "PanchayaJ (Lo.ans from Qovernment or F,in,anc_iQ-.lJns(itutiof.1,s)}lulf?$J _ 1999" . 116. Writing off of irrecoverable sumsand unusable material.- .The irrecoverable sums due to Panchayats and such material as may not be useful shall be written offin the prescribed manner. Rules:- The State Government has made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this' section. These Rules shall be found under Rules giv~en-"-e.Par-"telY" . .. _ .. "Irrecoverable Sums Rules, 1995" 117. Prohibition of remuneration to members.-No member of a Panchayat shall be granted any remuneration or allowance of any kind whatsoever by the panchayat except in accordance with the rule mad,,- in this behalf. Rules:- The State Government has made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules given separately. . L_Zila .Panch.a.yat Members ITraveliing. anfJiJther Allowances),' Rules 1995. . .' 2. 'Janapada Panchayat Members (Travelling and other Allowances), Rules 1995. 3. Gram Panchayats (Travelling Allowance and other Allowances) Rules, 1995. • • • •'I, (PA1158 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.109 (3) No.thing in this sectio.n shall be deemed to. apply to. any suit instituted under Sectio.n 38 o.fthe Specific Relief Act, 1963 (No..47 o.f 1963). , 109. Certain suits against members officers etc. to be defended at cost of 1[Panchayat or GramSabha].-With the previo.us permissio.n o.fthe Co.llecto.rsuit against any o.fficebearer, o.fficer o.r servant o.fa 21Panchayat o.rGram Sabha] arising aut o.fanything dane o.rany actio.n taken by him under this Act o.rthe rules o.rbyelaws made thereunder, shall be defended by the 3[Panchayat o.r Gram Sabha] co.ncerned an behalf o.fsuch perso.n and the expenses incurred an such defence shall be paid aut o.fthe funds o.fthe 4[Panchayat o.rGramSabha] co.ncerned. 110. Bar of other proceeding in respect of tax etc.-II) No. o.bjectio.n shall be taken to. any valuatlo.n, assessment o.r levy In any manner ather than the manner pro.vided in this Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) No.suit far damages o.rfar specific perfo.rmance shall be maintainable against any 5[Panchayat o.rGram Sabha] o.rany o.fficebearer, o.fficero.rservant thereo.f, an the ground that any o.fthe duties specified in this Act have nat been perfo.rmed. Ill. Members and servants of Panchayat to be public servant.- Every o.fficebearer o.fPanchayat and every o.fficer o.r servant thereo.f shall be deemed to.be public servant within the meaning o.fSectio.n 21 o.fthe Indian Penal Code, .1860 (XLVo.f1860r . '. -.. 112. Vacancy or defect in constitution .of procedure etc. not to invalidate act of Panchayat. -No. act o.fPanchayat shall be invalid merely by reaso.n o.f- (a) any vacancy in o.rdefect in the co.nstitutlo.n thereo.f; o.r (b) any defect In the electlo.n, co.-aptian o.rappo.lntment o.fa perso.n acting to.be a o.fficebearer, thereo.f; o.r . (c) any Irregularity In Its procedure nat effecting the merits o.fthe case. 113. Acquisition of land.-O) Where any land Is required far the purpo.se o.f this Act and the Panchayat Is unable to. acquire it by agreement, the State Go.vernment may at the request o.fthe Panchayat and an the reco.mmendatio.n' o.f the Co.llecto.rpro.ceed to. acquire It under the provisio.ns o.fLand Acqulsltlo.n Act, 1894 (No..I o.f1894) and an payment by the Panchayat o.fco.mpensatlo.n awarded under that Act. and all ather charges Incurred by the State Go.vernment in co.nnectlo.n with the proceedings, the land shall vest in the Panchayat an who.se acco.unt It has been so.acquired. (2) The Panchayat shall nat witho.ut the previo.us sanctlo.n o.fthe State. Go.vernment transfer any. '.land which ,.has been acquired under . I Subs. by M.P.Act3 of2o.o.l. w.e.f.26-1-2o.o.l. 2 Subs.by M.P.Act3 of 2001, w,e.f.26~1-2001. 3 Subs. by M.P.Act3 of2o.o.l. w.e.f.26-1-2o.o.l. 4 Subs. byM.P.Act3 of20.0.1.w.e.f.26-1-2o.o.l. 5 Subs. by M.P.Act3 of2o.o.l. w.e.f.26-1-2o.o.l. • . . • • • S. 108 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)157 . Information shall, on conviction be punished with.a fine which may extend to two hpndred fifty rupees. 105. Prohibition of bidding.-(l) No member or servant of a Panchayat or any officerhaving any duly to perform In connection with the sale of movable or Immovable property under this Act shall directly or Indirectly bid for or acquire interest in any property sold at such sale. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall on conviction, be punished with fine which m~y extend to two hundred fifty rupees and if he is an officer or servant of a Panchayat, he shall also be liable to be removed from service. 106. Procedure to make good the damage to any Panchayat.-If' through any act, neglect or default on account of which any person shall have incurred any penally imposed by or under this Act and any damage to the properly of any Panchayat have been cause by any such person, he shall be liable to make good such damage. as well as to pay such penally and the value of the damage, shall in case of dispute, be determined by the Magistrate, by whom the person incurring such penalty has been convicted and on non-payment of such value on demand, the;same shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. ., CHAPTER XIII . MISCELLANEOUS 107. Indemnity for acts done in good faith.-No suit shall be malntalnaljlle' against any lIPanchayat ..OI' Gram. 8abhaJor .anyohts:. 00. ....., committee!or any officebearer, officeror servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of any such 21Panchayat or Gram Sabha),. its committee, officebearer, officeror servant in respect of anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or under any rules or byelaws made thereunder. COMMENTARY Applicability.-Bitr of suit, does not apply in a case where there is demand ofbribe by the Panchayat Officers.In such cases such officers act. _ in their personal capacity. Harisingh v. Rameshchand, 1997 (II) MPWN 53. 108. Bar of suit in absence of notice.-(l) No suit shall be instituted against any 31Panchayat or Gram Sabha) or any office bearer. officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of any ofthe authorities. mentioned in this Act for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act unless a notice under S<!'Ctiori-Sl):oftne-civifPfocedure Code~19M'(N6':V of 1908) hasDeen duly served. ~'- (2)' Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is Instituted within six months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action. l' Subs. by M.P.Act 3 of 2001. w.e,L26-1-20Pl. 2 Subs. by M.P.Act 3 of2Q01, w.e.f.26-1-2001. 3 Subs. by M.P.Act 30[2001, w.e.f.26-1-Z001. • • s: 101 (PA)156 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 under Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, 1868 (XLVof 1868). COMl\jENTARY Bar-Interpretation.-Thewrit petition contending that on the date of the grant of fishing right iri"favour of the 5th respondent- society, its President, namely Punit Ram was a Panch of said Janpad Panchayat and therefore the bar enacted in S,100 was attracted. Held, that Section 100 of the Adhiniyam provides that if a member or office bearer or servant of Panchayat knowingly acquires .directly or indirectly anypersonal share or interest (emphasis supplied) ili any contract.or employment with, by or on behalf ofa Panchayat without th~ sanction oforpermission ofthe prescribed authority, he shall be deemed to have committed an offenceunder S. 168 of the Indian Penal Code, 1MB. What is prohibited under S.100 of the Ad- hiniyam is that a member or office bearer or servant of the Janpad Panchayat under any contract or arrangement is not entitled to acquire either directly or indirectly any interest or right. It is nobody's case that under any contract between the 3rd Respondent Janpad Panchayat and Punit Ram,the then President ofthe 5th Respondent -Cooperative Society, he had acquired any personal share or interest and, therefore, he is liable to be punished as envisaged under S.lOO of the Adhiniyam. A Co-Operative Societyregistered under the M.P.lC.G. CO;Op. Societies Act, 1960 has a distinct and separate legal entity than the personality of the members constituting it. The bar contained in S..100-ofthe _ Adhiniyam c"iila not beappiiedto the fads -ofthi. case. sini. Jaitrinbai Dheamar v. State ofC.G., 2006(2) CGLJ 44. 101. Wrongful restraint of officers etc.-Any person who prevents any officer or servant of a Panchayat or any person to whom such officer or servant has, lawfully delegated his powers of enteIing on or into and any place building or land from exercising hIs lawful powers of enteIing thereon or therein, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1868 (No.XLVof1868). 102. Prohibit against obstrnction of member of Panchayats.- Any person obstructing any member, office bearer or servant 'If a Panchayat or any person with whom a contract has been entered Into by or on behalf of a Panchayat in the discharge of his duties or anything shall on conviction be punished with a fine which shall. extend to two hundred fifty rupees. 103. Prohibit against.remova.LQf obliteration notice.-Any person who without authoIity in that behalf rlimoves. destroys, defaces or otherwise obliterates any notice exhibited or any sign or mark erected by. or under the order of a Panchayat of any of Its officer shall on conviction be punished with a fine which may extend to fifty rupees. 104. Penaity for not giving information or giving faise information.-Any person required by this Act or the rules rna e thereunder or notice or other proceedings Issued thereunder to furnish any information omits to furnish such Information or knowingly furnishing wrong • • • I: S.100 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)155 "Bye-laws Rules, 1994." 97. Model byelaws.-(l) The State Government may from time to time make model byelaws for the guidance qf 1[Panchayat or Gram Sabha]. .' I (2)The State Government may direct 2[Panchayat or Gram Sabha) I, I to adopt a model byelaw after modifying the same to suit the local conditions. I~ (3) .If the 3[Panchayat or Gram Sabha) fails to comply with' a direction under sub-section. (2) within six month~ the State Government may apply'to such 4[Panchayat or Gram Sabha] such model byelaws. (4)The provisions of sub-section (4)of Section 96 shall apply to the adoptions or application of byelaws under this section. I~ CHAPTER XII - PENALTY 98. Penalty for acting as panch. Member, Sarpanch. Up-Sarpanch. President. Vice-President when disqualified.-(l) Whosoever acts as a panch or member of Panchayat knowing that he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled to hold office as such, shall on conviction be punished with.a fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day on which he sits or votes ,,:ssuch panch or member. r (2) Whoever acts as sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, President or Vice- .President, knowing that heisnoferithled- orhas"".eased {obeenttHea;' to hold office as such shall, on conviction, be punished with a fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day on which he acts or functions as such. 5[(3) Any person whose term of office has expired or who has tendered resignation or against whom a no confidence motion has been passed or who has been removed from an office of the panchayat fails to hand over forthwith any record, article or money or other properties vested in or belonging to the Panchayat which are in his possession or control to his successor in office shall-on conviction be-. punished with a fine which may extend to rupees two thousand.) . 99. Penalties for interested Membersvoting.-Whosoever. having interest in any matter under consideration of a Panchayat votes in that matter shall, on conviction, be punished with a fine which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees. 100. Penalty for acquisition by a member. office-bearer or servant of interest in contract. -If a member or office bearer or 'servant of Panchayat knowingly acquires, directly or indirectly any ..personal.share .orinterest in_any..contr.act <;>remployment with.-by or on behalf of a Panchayat without the sanction of or pennission of the ,,"pr;;~!'rib,ec!.a].!tl:l.Orlty.he 'Zhallbe deemedJo have.committed an.offence 1 Subs. by M.P.Act 3 of2001, w.e.f.26-1-2001. 2 Subs. by M,P.Act 3 of 2001. w.e.f.26-1-2001. 3 Subs.byM.P.Act 3'of2001.w.e.f.26-1-2001. 4 Subs.byM.P.Act 3 of2001.w.e.f.26-1-2001. 5 Subs.byM.P. 26of1994(30.5.941. i • (PA)154 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.95 MPLJ391. CHAPTER XI. RULES AND BYELAWS 95. Power to make rules.-(l) The State Government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters which under any provision of this Act, are required to be prescribed or to be provided for by rules. (3) All rules shall be subject to the condition of previous publica- tion. (4) All rules shall be laid on the table of Legislative Assembly. (5) In making any rule, thlo State Government may direct that a breach thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees and In the case of continuing breach with a further fine which may extend to fiverupees for every day durtng which the breach continues after the first conviction. CO MM E_NTA RY --' - . -- . Rules:- The State Government has made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules shall be found under Rules given separately. ~. 1."Panchayats (Correspondence) Rules, 1995"- 2. "Zila Panchayat (Business) Rules, 1998" .3. "Gram Panchayat (Registration of Coloniser Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1999". 4. "Panchayat (Purchase of Material and Goods) Rules, 1999" 96. Byelaws.e(l) K1[Parichayat orG'ram Sabha] may makebyelaws consistent with this Act and rules made thereunder. (2) In making byelaws under sub-section (I) the 2[Panchayat or Gram SabhaJ may direct that a breach thereof shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees and in the case of the continuing breach with a further fine which may extend to five rupees for every day durtng which the breach continues after the first conviction. (3) A byelaw shall not come into force until it has been confirmed by the prescribed authortty. (4)The manner of making byelaws and their approval shall be such as may be prescrtbed. Rules:- The State Government has made the followingrules in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. These Rules'shall be found under Rules given separately. 1 Subs. by M.P.Act 3 of 2001. w.e.f.26-1-2001. 2 Subs.byM.P.Act 3 012001.w.e.I.26-1-2001. • • 8.94 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)153 disqualified and no action as contemplated under S.92(l) was taken against him. Gendalal v. State of M.P., 2006(3) MPLJ 360 =2006(2) MPHT 38. J 3. Difference of proceedings under 5s. 92 and 40.-Proceedings under section 92 are quite different than that of section 40. No action of removal of a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat can be taken by the prescribed authority In the proceedings initiated under section 92. Maya Choudhary v. Stat~ of M.P., 2012(2) MPW 90 = 2012(5) MPHT 240. 4. Rules:- The State G6venfinent'has made the followingrules in exercise ofthe powers confer..,d by this section. "Panchayat (Recovery of Records, Articles and Money) Rules, 1995" 93. Delegation of powers.-{l) The State Government, may by notification, delegate to or confer on any officer subordinate to it or to any Panchayat all or any of the powers conferred upon it by or under this Act, except the powers relating to framing of rules. (2) The powers delegated under sub-section (1) shall be exercised in accordance with the general or special order issued by the Slate Govemment in this behalf. (3) The State Government may by notification prescribe various authorities .underthis Act. "0 •• _ •__ ._ • - -. - . - --- - '.- . -. -," .........-... -- 94. General power of control-In all matters connected with this Act or the rules made thereunder all officers empowered to act by or under this Act shall be subject to the same control by the same authority under whose administrative control they normally perform the functions of their office. COMMENTARY 1. Natural justice.-Appointment of Shiksha Karmis Grade-III. The selectlist l'repared by the Committee was' objected to and the Collector exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 5 ofthe Rules of 1995, cancelled the appointments and ordered for preparation new revised select list. He gave noopportunity ofhearing to the candidates selected but omitted. Earlier list was prepared in violation ofprescribed rules and norms. Order ofselection Committee not appealable. Colleclor had jurisdiction to revise list but opportunity ofhearing ought to have been given to the affected candidates. Arti Bhatnagar v. State of M.P., 2000 (2) MP~ 151 (DB). 2. Hearing of election petition in case of Janpad Panchayat. Jurisdiction of Additional ColIector.-lJndtr this ~ection an .election jietiti(niin-case'ofJanpadPancfiayatls "tobepresent~«(beforethe Collector. In view of section 17(2) of the M.P,Land Revenue Code, an Additional Collector can hot only exercise such powers and discillirge such duties conferred on the CollectorbY'orunder the Code,but he can also exercisethe power of the Collectorunder any other enactment, in case, Collectorofthe District by his Order in writing'directs him to do so. Therefore, the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to hear the election petition in case it is transferred to him. Rajkumar Shiv hare v. Anand Kumar Tiwari, 2000 (3) f (PA)152 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.92 authorise<;'ly in his custody any record or article or money belonging to the Panchayat I[or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] 2[or committee of Gram Sabha], he may, by a written order, require that the record of article or money be delivered or paid forthwith to the Panchayat 3[or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] 4[or committee of Gram Sabha]' in the presence of such officer as may be appointed by the prescribed authority in this behalf. (2) If any person fails or refuses to deiiver the record or article or pay the money as directed under sub-section (1) the prescribed authority may cause him to be apprehended and may send him with a warrant in such form as may be prescribed, to be confined in a Civil Jail for a period not longer than thirty days. (3) The prescribed authority may(a) for recovering any such money direct lhal such money be recovered as an arrear of land revenue; and (b) for recovering any such record or articles issue a search warrant and exercise all such powers ",ilh respect thereto as may lawfully be exercised by a 1\l.tgislrate under the provisions of Chapter VIIof the code' Ii Crimimtl Procedure, 1973 (No.2 of 1974). , (4) No actIon unders\lP-sectio_n(lJ.or(2) or (3) ,shall bet!\!<en unless a reasonable opportumty has been given to the person concerned to show cause why such action should not be taken agalnsl him. 5[(4_A)The case pertaIning to recovery of any record or article or money initiated by the prescribed authority shall be disposed ofwithin six months from the date of initiation.] (5) A person against whom an action is taken under this section shall be disqualified to be member of any Panchayat 6[or Gram Nirman Samiti" and8 Gram' Vikas, Samiti]'" 7[or, committee. "..of Gram Sabha]... --" for a period of [six]years commencing from the initiation of such action. COMMENTARY 1. Disqualified person.- A person against whom an action is taken under section 92 shall be disqualified to be a member ofany Panchayat for a period of six years and his nomination paper cannot be accepted. Uttam Singh v. Bharatlal Yadav, 2002 (2) MPLJ' 483. . 2. Not Disqualified.-On receipt of notice under Sub-Section (4) of excess expenditure, petitionerSarpanch imlnediately deposited the excess amount and proceedings against him were dropped therefore he' is not I Ins. by M.P. Act 16 of 2004, w.e.f. 1-1-2005. Ins. by M.P. Act 18 of 2007 w.e.f. 25-5- . . 8.92 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)151 2009(1) MPWN 24 = 2008(5) MPHT 421. , [8]Appointment order of Panchayat Karmi issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is appealable and", Revision under the Rules did not lie at all. RajkumariRai v. State of M.P., 2009(1) MPW 203 =2009(1) MPWN 107. See also: Abdul Hussain Qureshi v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPW 546 = 2009(1) JW 320 = 2009(1) MPHT 322. [9] Appointment made by the Janpad Panchayat is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 3 and the order of the Collector is further subject to revision before the Commissioner under Rule 5. Shyama Dwivedi v. State of M.P., 2009 (1) MPLJ 456. [10] No appeal or revision lies against the proceedings of Gram Panchayat. Ramlakahn Rawat v. State of M.P., 2000 (2) MPW 176=2000 (1) JLJ 280. [11]Rules framed under section 91 ofthe Act donot provide any remedy of appeal or revision against the proceedings of the Panchayat. Under the Rule_s_anyorder passed by Gram Panchayat in pursuance of the resolution /-i-s' appealable and no revision is maintainable against the proceedings of Panchayat. 1999(2)MPLJ 62=1999 (1) JW 146 FoIl.Ramlakahn Rawat v. State of M.P., 2000 (2) MPW 176=2000 (1) JW 280. [12JThe Legislature has not empowered the authorities to cancel or set _--as.ide-anyresolution qf:Panchayat in-:appeaL or re'lision.;Hovyever;" any order , passed by the Authority under sub-section (2)ofsection 85 ofthe Act which is subordinate to the Officers mentioned in Rule 3 of the M.P.Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, the order shall be appealable and thereafter revision shall lie against the appellate order. Ramlakahn Rawat v. Sta!e of M.P., 2000 (2) MPW 176=2000 (1) JW 280. [13] From the scheme of the Act, it is apparent that any resolution passed by Panchayat is neither appealable nor revisable. Resolutions of Panchayats cannot be set aside. However, orders passed by Panchayats shall beappealable under RulB3.9fthe "foJesai,1r\l!es andafter orderin appeal, it shall be revisable under Rule 5 of the Rules. Ramlakahn Rawat v. State of M.P., 2000 (2) MPW 176=2000 (1) JW 280. [14]Where a motion of no confidence is passed or failed, no appeal or revision lies against-it, since itis neither an order nor any proceeding in any pending case. 1998(2)JLJ 267Relied on.Ramnath Kaushik v. State of M.P., 1999 (1) JW 146. 5. Jurisdiction of S.D.O.- Removal of panchayat Karmi cannot be ordered by S.D.O. Satendra Singh v. S.D.a. Lahar, 1998 (I) MPWN 44. _6•.Rules.- TheState Govemment has made the followingr-ules in exercise ofthe powers conferred by this section. These rules shall be found under Rules .givenseparately. ''Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995" 92. Power to recover records articles and money.-(l) Where the prescribed authority is of the opinion that any person has un- 2007. Ins. by M.P. Act 16 of 2004, w.e.f. 1-1-2005. Ins. by M.P. Act 18 of 2007 w.e.f. 25-5-2007. Ins. by M.P. Act No. 260[2012(23-5-20121. Ip.s. by M.P. Act 16 of 2004, w.eJ. 1-1-2005. I"-s. by MP Act 18 of 2007 w.e.f. 25-5-2007. Subs. by M.P. 26 of 1994 [30.5.94] for the word "five".