Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application filed by the respondent 1, Khandwa BJP MLA Kanchan Tanve for the modification of an ex-parte order passed against her, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., allowed the application for modification due to the pending amendment application, ensuring procedural fairness while imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent 1 for delaying tactics and making false allegations against the Court.
In the instant matter, an application was filed for the modification of an order dated 13-05-2024, where the court proceeded ex-parte against respondent 1, Khandwa BJP MLA Kanchan Tanve. Respondent 1 received the notice on 23-04-2024 and the same was treated as served on the same date. Respondent 1 argued that she received the acknowledgment of notice on 08-05-2024, and despite the acknowledgment being received on 08-05-2024, the court proceeded ex-parte on 13.05.2024 as Respondent 1 failed to appear. The office note dated 27-04-2024 confirmed that the notices were served as per the Indian Post website, with the service report inserted. Respondent 1 argued that the notice was received by an employee and not respondent 1 herself. Respondent 1 claimed that non-appearance on 13-05-2024 was due to polling for the Lok Sabha election in Khandwa.
The Court noted that respondent 1 was aware of the hearing dates and counsel for Respondent 1 failed to demonstrate that the notice required personal appearance only. The Court noted that Section 86(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, mandates the trial of an election petition to continue daily unless adjournment is necessary.
“Section 86(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that the trial of an election petition shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day unless its conclusion, unless the High Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.”
The Court noted that the respondent 1’s attempt to justify her non-appearance “appears to frustrate the statutory provisions of Section 86(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and for making an attempt to achieve the said ill-designed goal, respondent 1 has gone to the extent of making allegation against the Court” regarding the acknowledgment of receipt of notice was received by the Registry and its service.
The Court found that the reasons provided by respondent 1 were insufficient to set aside the ex-parte proceedings. However, given that an application for amendment of the election petition was pending, the Court decided to allow the present petition. The Court recalled the ex-parte proceedings against respondent 1 and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- for delaying proceedings and making baseless allegations against the Court, to be deposited within a week. The Court ordered that if the cost is not deposited by 09-07-2024, this order will lose its effect.
[Kundan Malviya v. Kanchan Tanve, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4725, order dated 02-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
