Election Petition Presented By Advocate Without Specific Authorization Under Panchayat Rules Is Not Valid Representation: MP High Court

The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Pranay Verma observed, “The language of sub Rule 1 of Rule 3 is axiomatic that an election petition shall be presented to the specified officer during the office hours by a person making the petition or by a person authorized in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. The word "Advocate" is not used in Rule 3 of Rules,1995. Certainly, an Advocate cannot be held to be the person authorized in writing in his behalf. Thus, there has to be specific authorization in favour of an advocate to present an election petition. We have seen the vakalatnama filed in the present case on behalf of the election petitioner and upon perusal of the said vakalatnama, we found that the vakalatnama contains no specific authorization for presenting an election petition…In the light of the aforesaid it is held that the presentation of election petition by Advocate without specific authorization in that behalf is not valid presentation.”

As per the factual matrix of the case, the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1-3 contested a Panchayat Election for the post of Sarpanch of village panchayat. On declaration of results, appellant was elected as Sarpanch. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer challenging the election of the petitioner and sought cancellation of her election on the ground of corrupt practice. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Rule 8 of the M.P Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 alleging that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 3 (Presentation of Election Petition) & Rule 7 (Deposit of Security) of the Rules, 1995 and sought dismissal of the election petition on the ground that election petition was neither presented by the election petitioner nor his counsel. The said application was rejected.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition challenging the order rejecting the application seeking dismissal of election petition. This petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Against this the petitioner moved the division bench in appeal.

With regard to non-compliance of Rule 3, the counsel for the respondent No.1/election petitioner contended that petitioner was present at the time of presentation of the election petition although he was not called upon to sign the order-sheet by the specified officer.

With regard to non-compliance of Rule 7 in respect of deposit of security at the time of presentation of the election petition, it was argued that the security amount of Rs.500/- had been deposited.

On perusal of the record, the Court noted that the security amount was deposited and the election petition was presented along with the receipt of security. The Court clarified that the deposit of security is mandatory under Rule 7 either at the time of the presentation of the election petition or prior to the filing of the election petition. However, the election petition has to be presented along with the receipt of the security deposit but the security cannot be deposited after the presentation of the election petition. Therefore, the Court rejected the appellant's contention that the deposit has to be made at the time of presentation of election petition.

On perusal of the order sheet, the Court noted that presence of the election petitioner was neither recorded in the order sheet nor his signature was there. The specified officer recorded that the election petition on behalf of the election petitioner was presented by the Advocate.

“Therefore, the presumptions drawn by the learned Single Judge regarding presence of the election petitioner at the time of presentation of election petition is patently contrary to the record. Further, in a case of noncompliance of mandatory provisions, in filing of election petition, there cannot be any presumption as the aforesaid Rules are to be strictly construed and complied with, they cannot be construed liberally and relaxed,” the Court observed.

Another issue that came before the Court was whether the presentation of election petition by an Advocate was a valid presentation or not.

The Court referred to Sub Rule 1 of Rule 3 which provides that an election petition shall be presented to the specified officer during the office hours by a person making the petition or by a person authorized in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. The Court noted that the term "Advocate" was not used in Rule 3 of Rules, 1995. The Court opined that an Advocate cannot be held to be the person authorized in writing in his behalf.

On perusal of the vakaltnama, the Court that no specific authorization for presenting an election petition was there. Thus, the Court held that presentation of election petition by Advocate without specific authorization in that behalf is not valid.

The appeal was hence, allowed. The order passed by the single judge was set aside and the election petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 was dismissed for non-compliance of Rule 3 of Rules, 1995.

Case Title: Kamlabai Versus Rajendra Singh And Others, Writ Appeal No. 2165 Of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 93