Vivek Rusia, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the learned Court to decide the election petition expeditiously.
2. The petitioner, being one of the voters, filed an election petition under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 & Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Election Rules, 1994 challenging the election of respondent No.1. The election petition was filed on 02.11.2022, now more than one year has been passed and till date, evidence has not begun.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1, i.e. Returning Candidate is filing repeated applications in order to delay the proceedings and the Court has rejected all the applications. One of the orders i.e. dated 13.02.2023 has been upheld by this Court. On every day, the application is being filed and the case is being adjourned for filing the reply on its decision. The very purpose of filing the election petition is being frustrated. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Prkhrem Saratchandra Singh v/s Mairembam Prithviraj Alias Prithibiraj Singh reported in (2015) 16 SCC 149, in which the Apex Court has observed that the election petition should be decided expeditiously, where the respondents were also filing series of applications. Paragraph-20 & 21 of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
"20. A voter casts his vote as a responsible citizen to choose the masters for governing the country. That being the trust of the electorate i n an elected candidate, when he faces an assail to his election, it should be his sanguine effort to become free from the assail in the election petition and work with attainment and not take shelter seeking adjournments with the elated hope that he can be triumphant in the contest by passage of time. This kind of attitude has to be curbed from all angles because law does not countenance it.
21. We are absolutely conscious that in this case the election petitioner has also filed an application for early determination o f the preliminary objection. The respondent, the elected candidate, has filed series of applications. We are of the convinced opinion that the election petition pending before the High Court has to be decided with extreme alertness and in quite promptitude. As the court has not framed issues, it shall proceed to frame issues. Thereafter, the evidence shall commence and the court shall, regard being had to the statutory command and the norms i n a democratic polity, dispose of the election petition b y e n d of February 2016. All the miscellaneous applications shall be decided at the time of final hearing so that the procrastination is totally ostracised."
4. In view of the above, the District Judge is directed to follow the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court and avoid the unnecessary adjournment. If Court finds that the unnecessary applications are being filed, then the same be decided on the same day without reply and if required, the cost be also imposed. The election petition be decided expeditiously.
5. Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above.
