Subodh Abhyankar, J
1] Heard on I.A. No.5229/2024, which is an application filed by respondent Smt. Neena Vikram Verma under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151
CPC for rejection of election petition on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action.
This Election Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the election of the respondent Smt. Neena Vikram Verma, who has been elected as
Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State for Dhar constituency.
2] Shri Champala Yadav, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the entire election petition filed
by the petitioner to submit that the only ground which the petitioner has raised is that the respondent has not complied with the earlier order passed by
this Court in the election petition, E.P. No.31/2014 dated 20/11/2017, which was also filed by the present petitioner against the present respondent only
who was elected as the member of the legislative assembly from the constituency No.201, Dhar (M.P.), I the elections held in the year 2013, and this
Court was also pleased to allow the said election petition by setting aside the election of the respondent Smt. Neena Vikram Verma and while allowing
the petition, it was also directed to the respondent to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-, if certified by the petitioner therein, who is also the petitioner in the
present case, and the respondent has not paid the said to the petitioner, and has also not disclosed this fact in her affidavit which was filed in Form 26
along with the nomination paper.
3] Learned Sr. counsel has submitted that admittedly the aforesaid amount has not been paid by the respondent for the reason that the said order
dated 20/11/2017, was stayed by this Court only in the same EP No.31/2014, vide another order dated 20/11/2017, passed under Section 116(d) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951), staying the operation of the order for a period of 45 days, and
thereafter the aforesaid order was also affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.20916/2017 vide order dated 13/12/2017, and finally the
aforesaid civil appeal was also disposed of by the Supreme Court on 02/07/2019, holding that as the fresh elections have already taken place, the order
passed by this Court shall not have any real ramification, and thus, the appeal has been disposed of. It is also submitted that after the disposal of the
aforesaid civil appeal by the Supreme Court, the petitioner also preferred MCC No.1736/2019, seeking execution of the order passed by this Court in
EP No.31/2014 dated 20/11/2017, which has also been dismissed by this Court, holding that the order passed in an election petition by this Court does
not amount to a decree and hence, the application for execution of the aforesaid order was held to be not maintainable.
4] Shri Yadav has also submitted that the petitioner has also suppressed some material facts regarding the fact that subsequently the petitioner had
also applied to the Registry for preparation of the decree of the order passed by this Court in EP No.31/2014 but the Registry has also taken note of
the order passed by this Court in MCC No.1736/2019 dated 03/12/2019, and it has been finally communicated to the petitioner that his file is closed as
no such decree can be prepared.
5] Counsel has also submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate in its pleadings, as to how the non-payment of the
aforesaid amount and the non-disclosure of the information regarding the said amount in the affidavit filed by the petitioner as provided under Form 26
has materially affected the election of the returned candidate as provided under Section 100(1) (D)(iv) of the Act of 1951. In support of his
submissions, Shri Yadav has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Karikho Kri vs. Nuney Tayang and
another reported as AIR 2024 SC 2121. Counsel has submitted that in the aforesaid case also, the question before the Supreme Court was the non-
compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1951 as it was alleged that a false affidavit has been filed by the returned candidate suppressing the
information of the ownership of the motorcycles held in the name of his son and wife, and the Supreme Court has observed that it has not materially
affected the result of the returned candidate and the order passed by the High Court has been set aside. Thus, it is submitted that no cause of action
has been able to made out by the election petitioner in the entire petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground and at this stage only.
6] On the other hand, shri Suresh Chandra Bhandari, the petitioner in person, has opposed the aforesaid application and it is submitted that the
petitioner has clearly pleaded as to how the election of the returned candidate would be materially affected by the non-disclosure of the aforesaid
information. It is also submitted that even if the Civil Appeal No.20916/2017 was disposed of by the Supreme Court, but admittedly the interim order
which was passed on 02/07/2019, also stood vacated and in such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondent to comply with the order
passed by this Court in EP No.31/2014 dated 20/11/2017. In support of his submissions, shri Bhandari has also relied upon the decision rendered by the
coordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in EP No.5/2019 dated 09/11/2022 in the case of Smt. Chanda Singh Gour Vs. Shri Rahul Singh Lodhi,
and it is submitted that in the aforesaid case also, one of the issues was regarding non-compliance of the order passed in the earlier election petition by
the respondent returned candidate as in the aforesaid case also, earlier EP No.11/2014 was filed, in which, a cost of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed on
the respondent which order was not complied with by the respondent, and the Court has categorically held that the aforesaid non-compliance would
amount to the non-compliance of Section 1(d)(4) of Section 11 of the Act of 1951, and provides a ground for declaring the election to be void. Thus, it
is submitted that no case for interference is made out at this stage and the application is liable to be dismissed.
7] In rebuttal, Shri C.L. Yadav, learned sr. counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order passed in EP No.5/2019 has already been stayed
by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9189/2022 dated 16/12/2022 and thus, it cannot be relied upon by the petitioner.
8] In counter rebuttal, petitioner has submitted that the order dated 16/12/2022 is a conditional order and the payment of cost has not been stayed by
the Supreme Court. Thus, the order can still be relied upon.
9] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, and perused the record.
10] Since the application under Order Rule 11 of CPC has been filed on the ground that there is no cause of action disclosed by the election petitioner,
it would be relevant to refer to the relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 of the election petition which refer to the grounds of election petition and cause of
action respectively, the same read as under:-
“(6) fuokZpu ;kfpdk ds vk/kkj
fuokZpu ;kfpdk ds vk/kkj@ Grounds of election potition
6-1 ;g fd izfroknh Jherh uhuk fodze orkZ ds }kjk izLrqr 'kiFki= es yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 dh /kkjk 33 d dk mYy?ku fd;k x;k gSA
6-2 ;g fd]izfroknh Jherh uhuk fodze oekZ ds }kjk izLrqr 'kiFki= es e/; izns’k mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB bUnkSj ds }kjk fuf.kZr izdj.k dzekadE P-
31/2014 lqjs’k pUnz Hk.Mkjh VS Jherh uhuk fodze oekZ vkns’k fnukad 20 uoEcj 2017 ls mRiUu 'kks/;@cdk;k@ns;rk dks 'kiFki= ds fcUnq
dzekad 8 es ugh n’kkZ;k x;k gS] rks fd yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 ds izko/kku dk mYy?kau gSA
6-3 ;g fd] bl lEcU/k es vkosnd ;kfpdkdkj dh vksj ls fuosnu gS fd vH;Fkh izfroknh Jherh uhuk fodze oekZ us vf/kfu;e vkSj fu;e es mYysf[kr micU/kks
dk mYy?kau fd;k gSA Li""V :i ls ;g fof/k ds }kjk LFkkihr ekin.Mks dk mYy?kau gSA
vf/kfu;e vFkok fu;eks ds mYy?kau ds dkj.k dkj.k yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 100(1)(D) (iv) vkdf""kZr gksrh gS] ftles fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ ds uke
funsZ’ku i= dks vuqfpr :i ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gks] ,sls fuokZpu dks 'kqU; ?kksf""kr fd;s tkus ds funsZ’k fn;s x;s gSA
7. okn dkj.k jkgr Cause of action
;g fd] vH;FkhZ izfroknh Jherh uhuk fodze oekZ ds }kjk vkius 'kiFk i= esa izdj.k dzekadE P-31/2014 vkns’k fnukad 20 uoEcj 2017 lqjs’kpaUnz
Hk.Mkjh VS Jherh uhuk fodze oekZ es a ikfjr fu.kZ; ls mRiUu O;fDrxr 'kks/;@cdk;k@ns;rk dks 'kiFki= ds fcUnq dzekad 08 esa ugh n’kkZ;s
tkus ls vokafNr O;fDr ds fuokZpu esa Hkkx ysus ls okndkj.k lthZr gqvk gSA blh izdkj vH;FkhZ Jherh uhuk fodze oekZ ds }kjk yksd izfrfuf/kRo
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33(d) dk Hkh mYya[ku fd;s tkus ls okndkj.k lthZr gqvk gS tSlk dh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk( 33) d es lwpuk dk vf/kdkj dk izko/kku myysf[kr
fd;s x;s gSA ftlds vuqlkj ,d vH;FkhZ dks 'kiFk i= esa fn;s x;s funsZ’k ls lacaf/kr tkudkjh dks izdV djus dh vis{kk dh tkrh gS a fdUrq izfroknh
vH;FkhZ ds }kjk U;k;y; ds vkns’k ls mRiUu ns;rk dks 'kiFk i= esa ugh n’kkZ;k tkuk tkudkjh dks Nqik;k tkuk gS tkudkjh dks izdV ugh djuk
ernkrk ds tkuus ds vf/kdkj dk mYya[ku gSA bl izdkj dk ;g mYya[ku Hkh oandkj.k dks lthZr djrk gSA Li""V gS fd vH;FkhZ izfroknh Jherh uhuk fodze
oekZ ds }kjk vuqfpr :i ls fuokZpu izfdz;k esa Hkkx fy;k gSA blds dkj.k fuokZpu ifj.kke nqf""kr gks x;s gSA**
11] A perusal of the aforesaid averments would reveal that the election petition is filed only on the ground of non-compliance of the order passed by
this Court in EP No.31/2014 dated 20/11/2017 in the case of Suresh Chandra Bhandari vs. Smt. Neena Vikram Verma, and its non-disclosure, in
the affidavit filed in support of her nomination paper in the last election. In EP No.31/2014also, the election of the respondent was challenged by the
present petitioner only, and while allowing the said election petition and setting aside the election of the respondent Smt. Neena Verma, this Court
made the following observations:-
“33. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The election of respondent No.1 is declared void. Costs of the petitioner shall be borne by respondent
No.1 and remaining respondents shall bear their own costs. Counsel fee is quantified at Rs.10,000/-, if certified. The Registry is directed to send an
authenticated copy of this order to the Election Commission of India and Speaker of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly as provided for by Section
103 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, at the earliest.â€
12] On the other hand, on perusal of the certified copies of the orders passed by this court, filed by the respondent on record and the cognizance of
which can be taken by this court, it is also found that the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2017 was stayed by this Court on the same day itself, the
proceedings of which read as under:-
“Counsel for respondent No.1 filed an application, I.A. No.16571/2017 under Section 116-B of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for
suspension of operation of the order passed by this Court today.
Copy was supplied to counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
After due consideration, the application is allowed. The operation of the order is stayed for 45 days from today. I.A. No.16571/2017 stands disposed
of.
The Registry is directed to send an authenticated copy of order passed on I.A. No.16571/2017 today to the Election Commission of India and Speaker
of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, at the earliest.â€
13] The aforesaid order was also challenged by the respondent before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.20916/2019, in which initially on
13/12/2017, the following interim order was passed by the Supreme Court :-
“Issue notice.
There shall be interim stay of the operation of the impugned order.â€
14] And thereafter, it was finally decided by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 02/07/2019, in the following manner:-
“Fresh elections have been held. The appellant has not got elected. The impugned order emanates from a finding that the nomination of the
appellant was not in order, naturally a position disputed by the appellant. Be that as it may, it has no real ramification or lis surviving now since the
fresh elections have been held. Really speaking the impugned order would have no consequence.
Learned counsel for the appellant however, insists that there may be some issue about the benefit which have accrued to the appellant.
The respondent is a voter. We are not inclined to go into this issue. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.â€
(emphasis supplied)
15] This order was followed by another order on the same day, which reads as under:-
“The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.â€
16] Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, an MCC No.1736/2019 was filed by the petitioner for compliance of the
judgement passed by this Court in EP No.13/2014 dated 20/11/2017, which was dismissed by this Court in the following manner:-
“Thus, as per the order passed in an Election Petition cannot be termed as a decree. As provisions of Order 20 Rule 6, 6-A, 7, Order 20-A Rule
11(c) and (e) of C.P.C. are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner for executing the order is itself
not maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt petition stands dismissed.â€
(emphasis supplied)
17] Subsequent to that, petitioner also applied to the Registry of this Court an application for preparation of decree pursuant to the final order dated
20/11/2017 passed in EP No.31/2014, which has also been denied by the Registry of this court, and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated
03/08/2022 in the following manner:-
 “On the subject cited above, this is to inform you that your Application dated 21/07/2022 regarding preparation of Decree in Election Petition
No.31/2014 (Suresh Chandra Bhandari vs. Smt. Neena Vikram Verma and others) has been filed after consideration.â€
(emphasis supplied)
18] It is also an admitted fact that the respondent has not deposited the sum of Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Court in EP No.31/2014 dated
20/11/2017. Thus, the question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the non-compliance of the aforesaid order would fall within the
mischief of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951, the relevant excerpts of which read as under:-
“100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.â€
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section
(2) if the High Court is of opinionâ€
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this
Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned
candidate or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affectedâ€
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate 5by an agent other than his election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall
declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.â€
(emphasis supplied)
19] In the election petition, it is alleged by the petitioner that in the affidavit filed by the respondent, she has not disclosed about the amount/liabilities
pursuant to the order passed by this Court in EP
No.31/2014, which she owed to the election petitioner.
20] In the considered opinion of this Court, an amount which can be said to be recoverable, is the amount which is legally recoverable from a person,
and so far as the order passed by this Court in EP No.31/2014 is concerned, in MCC No.1736/2019 dated 03/12/2019, this Court has already held that
the order passed in an election petition cannot be termed as a decree and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the aforesaid order was
executable. Apart from that, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.20916/2017 which was filed by the present respondent, while disposing of the
petition had also held as under:-
“Fresh elections have been held. The appellant has not got elected. The impugned order emanates from a finding that the nomination of the
appellant was not in order, naturally a position disputed by the appellant. Be that as it may, it has no real ramification or lis surviving now since the
fresh elections have been held. Really speaking the impugned order would have no consequence.â€
(emphasis supplied)
21] Thus, the Supreme Court has already held that the order passed in EP No.31/2014 would not have any consequence at all, which also leads this
Court to conclude that non-payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-to the petitioner would not have any adverse ramifications.
22] On the other hand, this Court is also required to look into the issue if the aforesaid non-compliance, if at all, has resulted in materially affecting the
election of the respondent returned candidate. In this regard, reference may be had to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Karikha Kri (supra), the relevant para of the same reads as under:-
“45. So far as the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951 is concerned, the provision requires that the established non-compliance
with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act of 1951 or any rules or orders made thereunder necessarily has to be shown to have materially
affected the result of the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate.
Significantly, the High Court linked all the non-disclosures attributed to Karikho Kri to Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act of 1951 but ultimately concluded
that his election stood invalidated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) thereof. Surprisingly, there is no discussion whatsoever on what were the violations
which qualified as non-compliance with the provisions of either the Constitution or the Act of 1951 or the rules and orders framed thereunder, for the
purposes of Section 100(1)(d) (iv), and as to how the same materially affected the result of the election.
46. In Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandar,i this Court held that where a returned candidate is alleged to be guilty of non-compliance
with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act of 1951 or any rules or orders made thereunder and his election is sought to be declared void on that
ground, it is essential for the election petitioner to aver, by pleading material facts, that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned
candidate has been materially affected by such breach or non-observance.
It was further held that it is only on the basis of such pleading and proof that the Court would be in a position to form an opinion and record a finding
that such breach or non-compliance has materially affected the result of the election before election of the returned candidate could be declared void.
It was further observed that mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or the statutory provisions, as stated above, would not result in
invalidating the election of the returned candidate under Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) as the sine qua non for declaring the election of a returned candidate to
be void on that ground under clause (iv) of Section 100 (1)(d) is further proof of the fact that such breach or nonobservance has resulted in materially
affecting the election of the returned candidate.
For the election petitioner to succeed on such ground, viz., Section 100 (1)(d)(iv), he has not only to plead and prove the breach but also show that the
result of the election, insofar as it concerned the returned candidate, has been materially affected thereby.
47. In L.R. Shivaramagowda and others vs. T.M. Chandrashekar (Dead) by LRs and other,s a 3-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that in
order to declare an election void under Section 100(1)(d) (iv) of the Act of 1951, it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead that the
result of the election, insofar as it concerned the returned candidate, has been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of
the Constitution or the Act of 1951 or the rules or orders made thereunder and the failure to plead such material facts would be fatal to the election
petition.
48. However, perusal of the election petition filed by Nuney Tayang reflects that the only statement made by him in this regard is in Paragraph 21 and
it reads as follows:
'Hence, his nomination papers suffer from substantial and material defects. As such, the result of the election, insofar as the respondent No.1 is
concerned, is materially affected by the improper acceptance of his nomination as well as by the non-compliance with the provisions of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules and orders made thereunder, including Section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the orders made thereunder.'
Again, in his 'Ground No. (ii)', Nuney Tayang stated as under:
'As such, the nomination papers of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the result of the election in
question, insofar as it concerns the respondent No.1 the return candidate, as well as the respondent No.2, has been materially affected by such
improper acceptance of their nominations.'
Though there are some general references to non-compliance with particular provisions of the Act of 1951 and the rules made thereunder, we do not
find adequate pleadings or proof to substantiate and satisfy the requirements of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. Therefore, it is clear that
Nuney Tayang tied up the improper acceptance of Karikho Kri's nomination, relatable to Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act of 1951, with the non-
compliance relatable to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) thereof and he did not sufficiently plead or prove a specific breach or how it materially affected the
result of the election, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, Karikho Kri.
It was not open to Nuney Tayang to link up separate issues and fail to plead in detail and adduce sufficient evidence in relation to the non-compliance
that would attract Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. The finding of the High Court in that regard is equally bereft of rhyme and reason and
cannot be sustained.
49. As regards the failure on the part of Karikho Kri to disclose the dues of municipal/property taxes payable by him and his wife, the same cannot be
held to be a non-disclosure at all, inasmuch as he did disclose the particulars of such dues in one part of his Affidavit but did not do so in another part.
In any event, as Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, learned senior counsel, fairly stated that he would not be pressing this ground, we need not labour further
upon this point.
50. On the above analysis, we hold that the High Court was in error in concluding that sufficient grounds were made out under Sections 100(1)(b),
100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951 to invalidate the election of Karikho Kri and, further, in holding that non-disclosure of the three
vehicles, that still remained registered in the names of his wife and son as on the date of filing of his nomination, amounted to a 'corrupt practice' under
Section 123(2) of the Act of 1951. In consequence, we find no necessity to independently deal with Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023 filed by Nuney
Tayang, in the context of denial of relief to him by the High Court, or the issues raised by Dr. Mohesh Chai in the replies filed by him.
51.In the result, Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 filed by Karikho Kri is allowed, setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the
Itanagar Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh in Election Petition No.01(AP) of 2019.â€
(emphasis supplied)
23] It is apparent from the aforesaid order that mere non-compliance of the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) cannot be said to be of any
consequence unless it is shown that the aforesaid non-compliance has also resulted in materially affecting the result of the election, in so far as it
concerned the returned candidate, the respondent herein.
24] In the present case, the petitioner has not averred as to how materially the result of the returned candidate has been affected except that non-
payment is in violation of Section 100(1)(d)(iv). Thus, on this ground also that the petitioner has not been able to make out any cause of action to file
this election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed.
25] The election petitioner has also banked upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in EP No.5/2019 dated 09/11/2022 in which
also, the same issue had arisen and this Court has made the following issues:-
“(i) Whether the respondent is guilty of non-compliance of order passed in Election petition No.11/2014 in respect of payment of cost of
Rs.10,000/- and suppressing this in the nomination form. If yes, whether it amounts to violation of Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of
Peoples Act, 1955.
(ii) Whether furnishing different information with regard to the contract with MPRRDA in the two nomination papers submitted by the respondent
amounts to irregularity and giving false information with regard to nomination papers, which has resulted in improper acceptance of the nomination
papers.
(iii) Relief and costs.â€
26] And the following finding were recorded by this Court in the aforesaid petition:-
“12. A perusal of para 34 of order passed in E.P. No.11/2014 (Ex.P-1) shows that the Court while dismissing the petition has imposed a cost of
Rs.10,000/- on petitioner Rahul Singh Lodhi, which was to be paid to respondent Chanda Singh Gour. Though Rahul Singh Lodhi (D.W.-1) and Brijesh
Kumar Mishra (D.W.-2) have stated that they tried several times to give the cost amount to Chanda Singh Gour (P.W.-1) and she has refused to
accept the same, however, the same has been categorically denied by her. In reply to a suggestion by respondent’s counsel, she stated that she is
ready to accept the cost amout even now. Further no document has been produced by respondent Rahul Singh Lodhi (D.W.-1) to show that Chanda
Singh Gour (P.W.-1) has refused to accept the cost amount or that he has tried to send it through demand draft or any other means or has given a
notice to Chanda Singh Gour in this regard. It is thus clear that the cost as directed by the Court has not been paid by the respondent, resulting in non-
compliance of the order made under this Act.
13. Section 100 of the Act of 1951 provides grounds for declaring the election to be void. Sub-section (1)(d)(iv) provides that if the provision of the
constitution or of this Act or of any E.P. No. 5/2019 rules or orders made under this Act is not complied with (the High Court) shall declare the
election of the returned candidate to be void.
14. In the present case, E.P. No.11/2014 was decided under the provision of this Act of 1951 and the Court has passed an order directing the
respondent to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to Chanda Singh Gour, which has admittedly not been complied with till date.â€
(emphasis supplied)
27] The aforesaid order has already been stayed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9189/2022 dated 16/12/2022 in the following manner:-
“Pending further order that may be passed in this matter, there shall be a conditional stay of the impugned judment and order in the following
terms:-
(a) The appellant shall be entitled to all the privileges benefit and allowances as a Member of 15th Legislative Assembly for the State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2018 and to participate in all the proceedings in the House.
(b) He shall, however, not be entitled to cast his vote on the floor of the House or any of the committees where he might be in the capacity of a
Member of the 15th Legislative Assembly for the State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018.â€
28] Thus, the aforesaid order passed by the coordinate Bench is already stayed by the Supreme Court, hence, this Court is not required to reflect upon
the merits of the same, but suffice it to say that the aforesaid order passed by the coordinate Bench in EP No.5/2019 cannot be relied upon for any
purpose at this stage.
29] In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is liable
to be and is hereby allowed, holding that the petitioner has not been able to make out any cause of action to file election petition, and the same is liable
to be and is hereby dismissed.
30] Accordingly petition stands dismissed.
