Writ denied; election petition restored after default under RPA inherent power due to minimal delay

HC dismissed the petition and refused the stay, upholding the Election Tribunal's restoration of an election petition that had been dismissed in default. The Court held that although the RPA does not expressly provide for restoration, the Tribunal has inherent power to dismiss for default and to restore proceedings where sufficient cause is shown. Given minimal delay (about five minutes), efforts to communicate the reason, and the respondent's failure to challenge within time, restoration was appropriate and the writ seeking prohibition and certiorari was rejected.

---

---

Issues:
- Petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of prohibition against the Election Tribunal, Ujjain
- Petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the restoration order passed by the Election Tribunal
- Contention regarding the power of restoration under the Representation of the People Act
- Analysis of the powers of the Election Tribunal under the Act
- Consideration of the inherent power of a tribunal to dismiss a petition in default
- Examination of whether the Election Tribunal must be deemed functus officio after dismissing a petition
- Evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the delay in appearance before the Tribunal
- Determination of the Tribunal's inherent power to restore proceedings
- Dismissal of the petition without notice to the other side and the application for stay

The judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh involved a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of prohibition against the Election Tribunal, Ujjain, and a writ of certiorari to quash the restoration order passed by the Tribunal. The case was dismissed in default of appearance but restored later. The Tribunal had dismissed the case due to the absence of the respondent or their counsel, leading to an application for restoration supported by an affidavit citing unavoidable delays. The petitioner was given an opportunity to respond to the affidavit but failed to do so within the provided time frame. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the case and subsequently restore it was deemed appropriate by the Court.

The main contention revolved around the power of restoration under the Representation of the People Act. The Act did not expressly provide for restoration, but the Court highlighted the inherent power of a tribunal to dismiss a petition in default when a party fails to appear. The Court emphasized that no specific provision in the Act was necessary to empower the Tribunal to make an order of dismissal in default. Additionally, the judgment referenced a previous case to illustrate the powers vested in the Election Tribunal under the Act and the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to election petition trials.

The Court analyzed whether the Election Tribunal should be considered functus officio after dismissing a petition and determined that the Tribunal possessed the inherent power to restore proceedings if sufficient cause was shown. In this case, the delay in appearance was minimal, and efforts were made to communicate the reasons for the delay to the Tribunal. The Court concluded that the Tribunal acted correctly in restoring the petition due to the slight delay of five minutes and the communication attempts made by the counsel.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition without notice to the other side, emphasizing the inherent right of a Court to restore proceedings dismissed in default when justified. The application for stay was also dismissed in line with the judgment.

---