Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962, deemed unenforceable in conflict with High Court Rules and parent Act.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has set aside the decision of the Election Tribunal, which had previously declared the election of Neetu Parmar as President of the Municipal Council, Multai, District Betul, void. The court, presided over by Judge Vivek Jain, allowed the civil revision petition filed by the returned candidate, Neetu Parmar, challenging the Election Tribunal's order dated June 13, 2023.
The judgment addressed the applicability and enforcement of Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962, which mandates a security deposit at the time of filing a revision petition. The court found this rule to be in conflict with the parent Act, the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, and the High Court Rules, thus rendering it unenforceable. The court clarified that the High Court Rules, framed under Article 225 of the Constitution and the Letters Patent, prevail in such conflicts.
The case revolved around allegations of corrupt practices during the election, including claims of identification marks on ballots and undue influence. The court meticulously examined the ballot papers and found no evidence of identification marks that could be deemed as such. It was observed that the marks were likely natural ink blots and trails, common across all ballots, including those favoring the election petitioner.
Furthermore, the court rejected the Election Tribunal's inference of corrupt practices based on the appointment of opposition party councillors to advisory committees post-election. The judgment emphasized that such appointments were legally mandated and not indicative of bribery or undue influence.
The court reiterated that allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions require strict proof akin to criminal trials and cannot be inferred beyond the pleadings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the findings of the Election Tribunal, thereby upholding Neetu Parmar's election and allowing her to resume her role as President.
In dismissing the revisions filed by electors who were not parties to the original election petition, the court underscored that such revisions are not maintainable under Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.
This judgment marks a pivotal clarification on the procedural requirements and the burden of proof in election-related disputes, reinforcing the precedence of High Court Rules over conflicting provisions in subsidiary legislation.
Bottom line:-
Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962, mandating security deposit at the time of filing a revision petition, is in conflict with the parent Act and the High Court Rules and cannot be enforced. Allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions require strict proof akin to a criminal trial, and findings of corrupt practices must not go beyond the pleadings.
Statutory provision(s): Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 Section 20, Section 26(2), Section 28; Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962; Article 225 of the Constitution of India.
Neetu Parmar v. Varshagadekar, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879166
