Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Comments under election petition Rules of 1995.-Comments under M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Dis- qualification For Membership)Rules, 1995are as follows:- Rule 3: I' A. Requirements of Election Petition.-[lJ Extra copy of memorandum of Election Petition givento returned candidate/respon- dent No. 1 before Election Tribunal. It was not required to be signed and verified by the Election Petitioner. Natthulal v. Shakuntalabai. 2011(2) MPW 424 = 2011(2) MPHT 153. [21 Rule 3 only provides signing and attestation of copies filed along with the election petition. Election petition filedby the respondent was accepted by the authority in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 and thereafter notice on the said election petition was issued to the appellant. Nothing on record to establish that a signed and attested copy of the election petition was not sent to the appellant along with the notice. Appellant should have established this fact and as the best evidence which was available to the appellant was not produced by him. an adverSe iIlference has .rightlylJeen qrawr\ against I1irn,Addi, . tional copy. Le. an extra copy which was given to the counsel for the' appellant during the proceedings need not be signed and attested by the election petitioner as that is not the requirement of Rule 3. Shakuntalabai v. Nathulal.2011(3) MPW 119 = 2011(5) MPHT 35. B. Maintainability of petition.-[l] Election petition filed by respondent No. 6 was not duly verified and the security amount required to be deposited at the time of presentation of the petition. Petitioner not having complied with mandatory provisions of the Rules was not maintainable. Kana Manda! v. State of M.P., 2010(2) MPW 468 = 2010(3) MPHT 278: -- -_. , [2J Election Petition not presented by the election petitioner by presenting it herself or through an authorized advocate. Election petition dismissed in view of provisions of Rules 3, 8 and 21. Kamlesh Nut v. Commissioner, 2012(4) MPW 385 = 2012(5) MPHT 127. [3JCopies of the election petition served on the respondent did not bear the signatures ofthe petitioner, were not verified and did not bear attestation as required by Rule 3(2). Election Tribunal rightly dis- missed the c!eclion petition. Bayulal Venna! v. Additional Collector, Chhindwara. 2009(4) MPW 548 = 2010(1) MPHT 477. [4JIf a party is having the best evidence in his power and posses- simi he Is duty bound to produce il in the Court in order to resolve the controversy and that party shouid not place reliance on the abstract doctrine of onus of proof that it was no part of his duty to produce it. Respondent No. I sh,,"ld have filedthe copy ofelection petition served upon her along wi1II the summons in the court in order to resolve the •• • •• • .. . . . PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)173 S. 122 any opinion about the improper rejection or reception of the votes but only with a view to enable him to form such an opinion, he had proceeded to pass the order directing production of the ballot papers and for reacting of the votes. An order ofrecount cannot be granted as a matter of course, which is to be resorted to only upon satisfaction that material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence justify. such an order. Kailashsingh v. Narayansingh, 1999 (1) JLJ 342. See also: [4]Pushpendra Singh v. Padmakar, 1998 (1) JLJ 35l. [5]Recount ofvotes cannot be ordered even on consent. Secrecy ofvoting cannot be broken lightly. Gajanan v. Ramcharan, 1997 (II) MPWN 3. [6]Also see Gayatri Bai v. Alka Sharma, 1997 (I) MPWN 98.