Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Writ Petition.-[I] Availability of an alternative is not always an absolute bar for maintainability ofwrit petition. Sukhnandan Patel v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPLJ 220=2003 (2) JLJ 74. [2JOrder of Single Judge against petitioner amply supported by plead- ings anq- evidence anTe_cord. Order confirmed. -Ram.nivas v..Pooran, AIR-_- 2002 MP 31=2001 (3) MPHT 347 (DB). [3] In election ofVice-President of Zilla Panchayat, where nomination paper ofthe petitioner was not accepted, he should have agitated the matter by filing election petition to the Tribunal. Writ petition dismissed. Nanhe Bhai Singh v. State of M.P., 2002 (4) MPLJ 161. [4] In an election to the post of Vice-President in reserved category of Scheduled Tribe, there was serious dispute with regard to social status of returned candidate. No such objectionwas raised by the other candidate at the time scrutiny of nomination paper before the Election Officer. Proper remedy was to approach the Election Tribunal to determine social status of the returned candidate. No writ lies. Ashok Kumar Rawat v. State of M.P., 2002 (4) MPLJ 446=2002 (4) MPHT 246. [4A] Direct writ petition when justified.-Despite alternative remedy a writ petition may be preferred directly :- (il where the Court or the Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction; or (iij when a writ is for enforcement"offundamental rights; or (iii) there is a violation of principal oDnatural justice; or (Iv) where vires' of the Act is in question. . .'PW !l1flJl.q!'t9ry.3't~Il.t-,~f.theprQ".isi.oJlspuld!ie.r.!'lfiX~<I9I).ly ifjt co_uld be shown that no prejudice was caused to the party complaining. Ramesh Soni v. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPLJ 207. 15] No challenge to election by writ petition.- The section con- templates challenge of election only by election petition. It cannot be chall~nged by way of a writ petition and as such no relief can be claimed by • r .l, Petition liable to be dismissed. Rama Banjara v. Kanchhedilal, 1998 (I) MPWN63. [2] Where petitioner claims that he or any other person be declared elected in place ofthe returned candidate, he has to join only the contesting candidates as party and not those whose nomination has been rejected or who withdrew his nomination. Harishallkar Suryavanshi v. State of M.P., 1998 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 225, [3) Apart from other prayers, where the petitioner also prays in the petition that he be declared elected, it is not necessary that such candidates who withdrew their nominations be also made party to such petition. Devram v. Sadu, 1996 JLJ 240. 6-A. Burden of proof.-[J) It is settled law that where the election petition is filed by the election petitioner contending that the returned candidate was disqualified to be elected on the ground that she was below the prescribed age, it is for the election petitioner to establish that the returned candidate was disqualified and not the candidate. BasantiBai v. PremwatiBai, 2012(4) MPW 257 = 2012(5) MPHT 386. [21Contents of petition & its proving.-Burden to prove case on the basis of proper pleading is on the election petitioner. Impugned order of Tribunal passed in mechanical manner declaring the election is invalid and directing for recounting ofvotes set aside. If the contents ofelection petition are examined injustaposition to the evidence led by the election petitioner, it would be clear that th~ pleadings are not supported with the high-degree of evidence which is required in an election matter to support the pleading. The burden to prove the case is always on the shoulder of the election petitioner. If election petitioner fails to prove the allegation to the hilt on the basis ofproper pleadings and evidence of a very high degree, merely on the basis of suspicion, election cannot be declared illegal and sacrosancity ofvotes cannot be permitted to be destroyed. In this view ofthe matter, the method adopted by the Election Tribunal in shifting the burden of proof on the present petitioner cannot be upheld. The Tribunal in a mechanical manner declared the election as invalid and directed for recounting. The said order is set aside and tne-petition is allowed. Hanuman Singh V. State afM.P., 2012(3) MPLJ 191 = 2012(5) MPHT 162.