Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Sub Divisional Officer-respondent 5’s orders dated on 26-07-2024 and 11-09-2024, which closed the petitioner’s right to produce witnesses in support of his case in an Election Petition filed by respondent 1, a single-judge bench of Pranay Verma, J., in order to do complete justice, granted the petitioner an opportunity to appear with all private witnesses and examine them.
In the instant matter, respondent 1 filed an Election Petition before respondent 5 questioning the election of the petitioner. Respondent 1 had already led evidence and closed the same. After the closure of Respondent 1’s evidence, the case was fixed for the petitioner’s evidence. The petitioner had filed a list of 17 witnesses, including 3 Government officials and 14 private individuals, and summons were served to all of them. The respondent 5, however, passed two orders dated on 26-07-2024 and 11-09-2024 closing the petitioner’s right to lead evidence and thereby preventing the petitioner from producing witnesses.
The Court noted that the records shows that there were discrepancies in the proceedings of the case. At some instances, it appeared that the petitioner had been negligent in presenting witnesses, while at other times, it seems that respondent 5 had failed to conduct the proceedings in a judicial manner.
The Court noted that the order-sheets of respondent 5 were hand-written, therefore, illegible, making it difficult to read the proceedings, which are critical for judicial scrutiny. The Court observed that these proceedings were being handled in a casual manner by respondent 5.
To ensure complete justice and an opportunity for the petitioner to present his case, the Court directed —
-
The petitioner to appear before respondent 5 with all his private witnesses (14 in number) between 25-02-2025 and 01-03- 2025.
-
Each witness who appears would be examined and cross-examined. If any witness does not appear, no further opportunity would be granted for their examination.
-
The respondent 5 to issue fresh summons for the three official witnesses, who would be examined on the date they appear before the Sub Divisional Officer. If they are not examined on the appointed date, no further opportunities for their examination would be allowed.
-
The respondent 5 to take judicial proceedings more seriously and ensure that the order-sheets are legible and properly maintained for scrutiny.
-
Modified the impugned orders to ensure that the petitioner had a fair opportunity to present his case.
The Court disposed of the petition is disposed of with the above-mentioned directions.
[Sanjay Maliwal v. Kavita Thakur, Writ Petition No. 29611 of 2024, Decided on 11-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Prashant Rajput, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, Government Advocate, Counsel for the State
