--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 7963 / 2010 BHAGATBAI W/O DEVISINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) GAROTH, DISTT. MANDSAUR & OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 15/3/2011) The petitioner before this court who is serving as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sagoria, Tehsil Garoth, Distt. Mandsaur has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 31/6/11 (Annexure P/11) and the order dt. 1/7/10 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Garoth, Distt. Mandsaur. The contention of the petitioner is that he was elected as a Panch in an election which took place on 18/1/10 and thereafter an election petition was preferred by respondent No.2 before the Election Tribunal. The petitioner has further stated that a notice was received by him, however, as the election petition was not in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 122 and Rule 3(2) of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, three applications were preferred before the Election Tribunal (Sub Divisional Officer) praying for rejection of the Election Petition. --- 2 --- The contention of the petitioner is that the Sub Divisional Officer on 31/3/10 without calling for any reply from the respondents, vide order dt. 31/3/10 rejected the petitioner's application in a mechanical manner and therefore a writ petition was preferred before this court and the same was registered as WP No. 4263 / 2010. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this court on 22/4/10 and a direction was issued to the Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Garoth, to decide the applications preferred by the petitioner (Annexure P/3 and P/4), if not already decided. The contention of the petitioner is that after an order was passed in the aforesaid case on 22/4/10 written arguments were submitted by him before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer by a cryptic and non speaking order dt. 3/5/10 rejected the application preferred by the petitioner and again a writ petition was preferred ie., WP No. 5452/2010 and this court vide order dt. 21/5/10 has quashed the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal dt. 3/5/10 and the Sub Divisional Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order and to redecide the petitioner's applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards order sheet dt. 21/6/10. The Sub Divisional Officer, by the aforesaid --- 3 --- order sheet again by a non speaking order has rejected all the three applications preferred by the petitioner. Not only this, while passing the aforesaid order dt. 21/6/10 he has observed that the order passed by this court dt. 21/4/10 and 21/5/10 are similar in nature and the present petitioner has misled this court and has obtained the aforesaid order. The fact remains that the applications of the petitioner were dismissed by a non speaking order on 21/6/10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently argued before this court that the petitioner is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and his applications were considered by the election Tribunal in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent / State has also argued before this court that the petitioner is delaying the matter on the one pretext or the other and on 21/7/10, the Election Tribunal has decided the applications preferred by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition being aggrieved by order dt. 31/3/10 by which the applications preferred by the petitioner --- 4 --- were rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer. This court vide order dt. 22/4/10 passed in WP NO. 4263 / 10 has directed the Election Tribunal to decide the applicaions preferred by the petitioner and thereafter again on 3/5/10 an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) (prescribed authority). The aforesaid order was also subjected to judicial scrutiny and this court vide order dt. 21/5/10 passed in WP NO. 5452/10 has directed the Sub Divisional Officer to redecide the petitioner's application by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The following order was passed by this court : Writ Petition No.5452 of 2010 21.05.2010 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri M.I.Khan, and Shri J.B.Dave, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on caveat. With consent heard finally. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by the S.D.O. Revenue/ Prescribed Authority Garoth, the petitioner has filed this petition. In the earlier round of litigation the petitioner's writ petition No.4263 of 2010 was disposed of by this Court vide order 22.04.2010 by passing following order :- “By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the proceeding order dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) by which the prescribed authority S.D.O. Garoth did not even refer to or pass any orders on the petitioner's application (Annexures P-3 and P-4) and has fixed the matter for filing of reply of the main petition and thereafter according to the petitioner --- 5 --- the matter has been adjourned for hearing. According to the petitioner, the applications Annexures P-3 and P-4 ought to have been decided by the said authority before proceeding to decide the case finally. He submits that the authority has not even mentioned about the said applications in the order sheet though the same have been filed by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, I am inclined to dispose of this petition directing the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/prescribed authority Garoth to consider and decide the petitioner's applications Annexures P-3 and P-4 if the same have not already been decided before proceeding further in the matter. With the aforesaid directions the petition stands disposed of ”. Thereafter, the said authority has decided the petitioner's application by impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order has been passed mechanically and there is absolutely no consideration of the petitioner's contention in regard to the grounds raised in the application dated 31.03.2010. It is also case of the petitioner that in support of the said applications the petitioner had submitted a written arguments (Annexure P-9) but the said authority without giving any consideration to the petitioner's contention has passed the impugned order and rejected both the applications by a cryptic non- speaking order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-10), I find that the S.D.O., Garoth has not applied his mind and has passed the impugned order mechanically. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-10) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The said authority is directed to re-decide the petitioner's aforesaid applications by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed. Cc within three days. The Sub Divisional Officer in compliance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 21/6/10 has rejected all the three --- 6 --- applications preferred by the petitioner and the only reasoning assigned in the impugned order is that all the three applications preferred by the petitioner are baseless. It is really unfortunate that the Sub Divisional Officer inspite of there being a direction by this court to redecide the petitioner's application by passing a reasoned order has rejected the applications preferred by the petitioner by simply observing that they are baseless applications. The impugned order as it is a non speaking order, does not assign any reason, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Not only this, the Sub Divisional Officer, has also observed that both the earlier orders passed by this court dt. 24/4/10 and 21/5/10 are similar in nature and this court was misled by the present petitioner which has resulted in passing of the order dt. 21/5/10. This Court is of the considered opinion that in case the Sub Divisional Officer, was of the opinion that the present petitioner has misled this court, in all fairness, he / or the State could have approached this court for clarification / review of the order dt. 21/5/10. However, nothing of that sort was done by the State / Sub Divisional Officer and for the third time by a non speaking order inspite of there being a categoric direction of this court, the applications --- 7 --- preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by stating that they are baseless applications. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Sub Divisional Officer is acting with a defiant attitude and the trial of the election petition therefore deserves to be transferred to some other Sub Divisional Officer. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dt. 21/6/10 is hereby quashed. The Collector, Mandsaur, is directed to transfer the Election Petition ie., Election Petition No. 06/C-144/09/10 Bhagwantibai Vs. Bhagatbai to some other prescribed authority within Mandsaur District. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 shall appear before the Collector, Mandsaur on 11/4/2011. The Sub Divisional Officer / prescribed authority shall proceed ahead in the matter from the stage prior to 21/6/10 and shall first decide the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner, as directed earlier by this court, by passing a reasoned and cogent order. It is also observed that the trial of the Election Petition be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR