SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.)Through this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Riddha Ram has approached this Court seeking to assail the orders dated 7.4.2015 (Annexure- 3) and dated 14.10.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Parbatsar in Election Petition No. 67/2015.
(2.)The facts in brief are that the petitioner contested and was declared elected as a chair person of Gram Panchayat, Bhadwa in the year 2015. The respondent Hadman Ram submitted an election petition in the Court of District Judge, Merta on 23.2.2015 for challenging the election of the petitioner by taking recourse of Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. Learned District Judge vide order dated 9.3.2015 directed that notices be issued to the respondents and the matter be placed on 7.4.2015. It appears that in the intervening period between 9.3.2015 and 7.4.2015 the election petition was transferred to the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Parbatsar (albeit without any judicial order and probably on the administrative side). Even before notices could be served upon the petitioner an application under O. 1 Rule 10 was filed on 26.3.2015 by respondent no. 2 Harji Ram for being impleaded as petitioner in the election petition. It may be stated here that the limitation of 30 days for filing election petition as per Panchayati Raj Act had lapsed by the learned Election Tribunal, allowed the said application with the consent of the original election petitioner but admittedly without hearing the petitioner by the order Annexure-3 dated 7.4.2015. After appearance in the matter, the petitioner moved an application under Rule 81(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules 1994 praying for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the same was presented by the person not competent to do so and thus the same should be dismissed. Such application moved by the petitioner was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 14.10.2015 which is assailed in this writ petition.
(3.)Learned counsel Mr. Vikas Balia places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia reported in AIR 1969 SC-677 and urged that defect of non joinder of necessary parties in an election petition cannot be cured by taking recourse of the provisions of C.P.C. Mr. Balia urges that limitation for filing an election petition as per Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994) is thirty days from the date on which the result of such election is declared. Admittedly Harman Ram was not a contesting candidate in the questioned election and thus the election petition suffered from a fatal defect. Learned trial court allowed the application preferred by Harji Ram under O. 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. so as to cure this fatal defect in the election petition without any justification and without having jurisdiction to do so. He thus implores the Court to accept the writ petition and quash the impugned orders while directing dismissal of the election petition on the ground of the same being presented by an incompetent person.