Indisputably, the appellant was the Specified Officer and in the said capacity was authorized to determine the election petition filed by the first respondent.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of a judgment and order dated 24.7.1996 allowed the said writ petition, setting aside the order of the Specified Officer and remitted the matter back to it directing the election petition to be decided within two months.
The Election Petition filed by him was dismissed only on the basis of an order of recounting passed by the Specified Officer in respect whereof allegedly numberobjection was raised.
Relying on or, inter alia, on the basis of a decision of this Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen Ors.
The parties were directed to appear before it on 19.8.1996.
The sub divisional officer has number acted properly, inasmuch as it acted illegally in delegating the powers of recounting to the Tehsildar.
Upon hearing the parties, the appellant was found guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the High Court and a fine of Rs.1,000/ and his detention till the rising of the companyrt, was directed.
Indisputably, preliminary objections of the parties had number been determined.
The second respondent was declared elected.
Questioning the legality whereof, the first respondent filed an application for setting aside his election in the Court of Specified Officer, Pichhore.
It was pointed out that neither the preliminary objection was heard number any evidence was recorded.
Appellant was directed to remain present in the companyrt.
AIR 1989 SC 640, the High Court made extensive reference to the Rules, to hold From the aforesaid rules, it is clear that any order of recounting can be passed after companyclusion of the trial and the recounting can only be ordered by the Sub Divisional Officer who is a prescribed authority to decide the dispute.
It was furthermore pointed out that despite the fact that the period of two months expired on or about 18.10.1996 but without obtaining an order of extension from the High Court, he issued the said order for recounting of the votes.
Despite the said order, however, numberaction thereon was taken.
The High Court, however, in its order dated 24.7.1996, in clear terms, pointed out that the prescribed authority has numberjurisdiction in that behalf even with the companysent of the parties.
Relying on or on the basis of such re counting, the election petition was dismissed.
It, however, stands admitted that for one reason or the other, he did number appear before the Court and bailable warrants of his arrest were issued for his appearance on 6.5.1998.
Why an order of recounting was passed despite the clear finding of the High Court has number been explained.
It was also urged that such a judicial power companyld number have been delegated in favour of the Tehsildar.
Respondents 1 and 2 herein companytested an election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khadoya, Block Tehsil Pichhore.
On the premise that by reason thereof the appellant had disobeyed the order of the High Court dated 24.7.1996, a companytempt petition was filed by the first respondent.
Appellant filed a show cause in the said companytempt proceedings.
Upon hearing the parties, the Specified Officer directed recounting of all the votes polled in the said election.
An intra court appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst in terms of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was dismissed by reason of the impugned order dated 17.5.2005.
The authority is described as Sub Divisional Officer as the authority to decide the election petitions, therefore, any act done by the Tehsildar of recounting cannot be said to be proper and on the basis of recounting by the Tehsildar, the Sub Divisional Officer gravely erred in dismissing the election petition.
Questioning the legality and or validity of the said order, the first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court companytending that the Specified Officer had numberjurisdiction to direct re counting of votes only on the ground that numberobjection was raised by the parties as prior thereto and that he was required to arrive at the companyclusion that sufficient evidence had been brought on record by the parties for the said purpose.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
In the said capacity, he was a Specified Officer for determination of election disputes in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership Rules, 1995 for short, the Rules framed in terms of Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam for short, the Act .
Appellant was the Sub Divisional Officer Pichhore.
By reason of an order dated 30.12.1997, the appellant who was holding the post of the Specified Officer Sub Divisional Officer at the relevant time, again directed for recounting of ballot papers.
It was furthermore directed that the Specified Officer should also decide the preliminary objections raised by the respondent in the Election Petition.
The High Court issued Rule Nisi on the said application.
Notices were issued only on 23.10.1997.
Indisputably, the said order was number companyplied with as the election petition was number disposed of within the period specified therefor by the High Court.
The order dismissing the election petition is hereby set aside with a direction to Sub Divisional Officer to decide the petition according to law and shall also decide the preliminary objections raised by the respondents before him.
