MP High Court Revives Sheopur Municipal President Election Petition, Slams State For Taking Contradictory Stand On Gazette Notification

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has restored an election petition challenging the election of the President of the Sheopur Municipal Council and strongly criticised the State Government and the elected President for taking contradictory legal stands and delaying the proceedings. 

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti set aside the order of the First District Judge, which had earlier dismissed the election petition as premature. 

The Sheopur Municipal Council elections were held in July 2022, in which 23 councillors were elected. Thereafter, on August 5, 2022, Renu Garg was elected President of the Municipal Council during the first meeting of elected councillors. 

Sumer Singh challenged her election through an election petition under the MP Municipalities Act, 1961. However, on February 1, 2024, the Election Tribunal dismissed his petition on grounds of non-maintainability. The Tribunal recorded that the election of the President has not been published and that the petitioner failed to file a treasury receipt of ₹200 per Section 20(3)(ii) of the Act. 

During the revision proceedings, the High Court noted a major contradiction in the stand taken by the State Government and Renu Garg. 

Before the Election Tribunal, they had argued that publication in the Official Gazette was mandatory for maintaining an election petition. But before the High Court, they argued that after the 2020 amendment to the Municipalities Act, Gazette publication was not required at all. 

 Taking serious note of this inconsistency, the court observed; 

"From the narration of aforesaid proceedings, it is evident that the non- applicants took an objection with regard to maintainability of EP on the ground for which they themselves are not sure. The applications were filed by both the parties without supporting affidavit. The non-applicant no.1, being a rival party to the case, is having all the rights to raise objections in the pending EP. However, such objections can be allowed to be taken when the party itself is sure about the same".

The court also questioned how Renu Garg continued to function as President if, according to the State's own stand, her election never became legally effective due to the absence of Gazette publication. 

On October 8, 2025, after the State and the President asserted that Gazette publication was unnecessary, the High Court restrained Renu Garg from functioning as President. 

The order was challenged before the Division Bench and later before the Supreme Court, but both challenges were rejected. 

The bench sharply criticised the conduct of the State during the proceedings, noting 

"Lastly, this case was listed on 01.04.2026, when the Additional Advocate General requested for an adjournment for two weeks as the learned Advocate General is not available. This Court observed that the request for adjournment is nothing but an attempt of Bench hunting. The conduct of non-applicants was deprecated and expressing its displeasure about the conduct of the Govt., the case was adjourned for final arguments in the week commencing from 13.07.2026". 

The court further noted that when the case was taken up in December 2925, the State candidly stated that no notification regarding the President election was required to be published. The court was also informed that a show-cause notice was issued to the OIC of this case. 

However, the court remarked, "This Court took note of the fact that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed before the Tribunal was not signed by the OIC and was signed only by the Govt. Advocate and also, no affidavit in support of the application was filed. This Court was of the opinion that the Govt. is trying the save the Higher Officials by crucify subordinate officers".

The court noted that the Government, during arguments, tried to withdraw the objections raised before the Tribunal and requested that the court not proceed further with this issue. However, the court noted that the Government's stand was 'not bona fide' and therefore the court rejected the request to withdraw the objections. Thus, the court directed the Chief Secretary to personally supervise an inquiry into who authorised the filing of objections before the Election Tribunal. 

Further, the court examined the changes brought by the 2020 amendment. The bench noted that before the amendment, the Presidents were directly elected by voters and their election had to be notified in the Official Gazette under Section 45. 

The court noted that while councillors' elections were still notified in the Gazette, there was no practical mechanism for the separate publication of the President's election after the shift to indirect elections. 

Highlighting this contradiction, the court observed; 

"Apparently, there is serious discrepancy in the provisions of the Act, pre & post amendment. The situation is unworkable inasmuch as there is no requirement of publication of notification of election of President, but EP can be filed only on publication of such notification in Gazette". 

To resolve the inconsistency, the court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction and noted that the State had later amended the law in 2023 to clarify that election petitions against Municipal Presidents must be filed within 30 days from completion of the election meeting under Section 55 and not from Gazette publication. 

Although the amendment was prospective, the court relied on it to understand the legislative intent behind the earlier provisions. The bench held that the cause of action arose on August 5, 2022, the date on which Renu Garg was elected President in the first meeting of councillors. Since the election petition was filed on August 23, 2022, the court held that it was within the limitation period and maintainable. 

Accordingly, the tribunal's order was set aside, and the Election Tribunal was directed to complete proceedings by November 2026. The court also clarifies that an objective regarding the ₹200 treasury receipt would be examined at the final stage after evidence is led, instead of being summarily decided under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The court also imposed a cost of ₹1 Lakh on Renu Garg for misuse of judicial process.  

Case Title: Sumer Singh v Renu Garg, C.R.No. 175/2024

For Petitioner: Advocate Pratip Visoriya

For Renu Garg: Senior Advocate M.P.S. Rahguvanshi with Advocate Manish Gurjar

For State: Advocate General Prashant Singh with Additional Advocate Generals Vivek Khedkar and Deependra Singh Kushwah and Government Advocates S.S. Kushwaha and C.P. Singh

Click here to read/downlaod the Order