# Dayanand v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 903
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 29191 of 2024
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dayanand-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52538
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Local Law - UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
- Section 12-C - Gram Pradhan - Election
petition - Re-counting of the votes -
Permissibility
-
How
far
Prescribed
Authority has jurisdiction - Held, Election
Tribunal/ Prescribed Authority u/s 12-C of
the Act cannot pass the order for finally
allowing the election petition as well as
for recounting. (Para 12)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Scope of interference - Alternative
remedy - When not amount to bar - Apex
Court's decision passed in Committee of
Management's case relied upon - Held,
alternative remedy will not be bar if the
impugned order has been passed in
violation of principal of natural justice or
the
order
impugned
is
without
jurisdiction. (Para 14)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Dayanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903

19. The notice has not been issued to
respondent Nos. 4 to 10 before setting aside the
impugned order as the election-petition filed by
respondent No.1 has been allowed under the
impugned order and respondent No.1 is
represented by learned counsel as well as this
Court is remitting back the matter before
Election Tribunal/Prescribed Authority where
everybody will be heard.

20. The writ petition stands allowed and
the matter is remitted back before respondent no.2/
Sub Divisional Magistrate/ Prescribed Authority
with a direction to register the election petition on
its original number and decide the same afresh on
the basis of evidence already adduced by the
parties, considering the law laid down by this
Court in Parshuram (supra) and Smt. Asha Devi
(supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period
of 3 months from the date of production of the
certified copy of the order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 29191 of 2024

Dayanand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. H.N. Singh, Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashok
Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, S.C., Mr. Anuruddh
Chaturvedi

A. Local Law - UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
- Section 12-C - Gram Pradhan - Election
petition - Re-counting of the votes -
Permissibility
-
How
far
Prescribed
Authority has jurisdiction - Held, Election
Tribunal/ Prescribed Authority u/s 12-C of
the Act cannot pass the order for finally
allowing the election petition as well as
for recounting. (Para 12)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Scope of interference - Alternative
remedy - When not amount to bar - Apex
Court's decision passed in Committee of
Management's case relied upon - Held,
alternative remedy will not be bar if the
impugned order has been passed in
violation of principal of natural justice or
the
order
impugned
is
without
jurisdiction. (Para 14)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kusum Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2023 8
ADJ 215

2. Writ C No. 6852 of 2023; Ram Kali Vs District
Judge, Hardoi & ors. decided on 09.08.2023

3. Parshuram Vs St. of U.P.; 2023 (1) ADJ 693

4. Committee of Management & anr. Vs ViceChancellor & ors.; 2009(1) AWC 437 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned
standing counsel for the state-respondents
and Mr. Anuruddha Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for respondent no.3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan of
Gram
Panchayat-
Malahpurwa,
Block
Rudrapur,
Tehsil-
Rudrapur,
District
Deoria in the election held on 26.4.2021.
Petitioner
has
secured
166
votes.
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Respondent no.3 filed one election petition
under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act") which was registered as Election
Petition No.2716 of 2021 (Computerised
Case
No.T202105200302716).
Another
election petition was filed by respondent
no.4 which was registered as Election
Petition No.2645 of 2021 (Computerised
Case No. T202105200302645). Petitioner
filed his written statement in both the
election petitions. Issues were framed in
both the election petitions. Respondent no.2
vide impugned order dated 21.8.2024,
allowed the election petition and order for
recounting. Hence, this writ petition for
following relief:-

"(i) Issue a suitable writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorari,
quashing the impugned order dated
21.8.2024 passed by the Prescribed
Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil
Rudrapur, Deoria in Election Petition
No.2716 of 2021 (Computerized Case
No.T202105200302716) (Ayush Yadav
vs. Dayanand and Others) and another
by Harendra Kumar being Election
Petition No.2645 of 2021 (Computerized
Case No.T202105200302645) (Harendra
Kumar vs. Dayanand and Others)
(Annexure No.6 to the writ petition)

3. This Court on 12.9.2024 passed the
following order:-

"1. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel
for
the
petitioner,
Mr.
Prabhakar
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for
the
State-respondents
and
Mr.
Anuruddh Chaturvedi for respondent
no.3.

2. Judgement reserved.

3. List/put up this case for
delivery of judgment on 18.09.2024.

4.Till the date of delivery of
judgment of this Court, effect and
operation of the order dated 21.08.2024,
passed by the Prescribed Authority,
respondent no.2, shall remain stayed."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order dated
21.8.2024 has been passed in illegal and
arbitrary manner. He further submitted that
the impugned order is without jurisdiction
coupled with the fact that the impugned
order is self-contradictory. He submitted
that the election petition has been allowed
and recounting is yet to take place,
indicating that the election petition and the
issues involved, have been pre-judged
without there being any material on record.
He further submitted that the order for
recounting cannot be passed unless there is
any evidence which requires recounting.
He also submitted that the order for
recounting has been passed on conjecture
and surmises, as such, the impugned order
for recounting cannot be sustained. He
submitted that after passing the impugned
order, allowing the election petition,
respondent
no.2/Prescribed
Authority
became functus officio, as such, the
recounting is only a formality as after
passing the impugned order, the Prescribed
Authority cannot pass any order further. He
submitted that order of recounting has been
done even without ballet paper having been
produced or seen by the Court. He placed
reliance on the decisions of this Court in
Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of
2024 (Parshuram vs. State of U.P. and
Others), decided on 23.12.2022; in Writ C
No.14461 of 2024 (Smt. Asha Devi vs.
Prescribed
Authority/Sub
Divisional
Magistrate and Others), decided on
8.7.2024
and
the
case
reported
in
9 All. Dayanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905
2017(135) RD 128, Athar Hussain vs.
Smt. Razda Begum and Others in support
of his argument.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.3 submitted
that there is no illegality in the impugned
order, as such, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable. He also
submitted that if the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is accepted that
order impugned is a final order, then the
remedy against the same will lie under
Section 12-C(6) of the Act rather the writ
petition before this Court. He submitted
that in view of the provisions contained
under Section 12-C(6) of the Act, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of alternative remedy. He submitted
that the case for recounting has been made
out under the impugned order, as such, the
argument on merit advanced by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot be
entertained. He placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court reported in 2023 8
ADJ 215, Kusum Mishra vs. State of
U.P. and Others; in Writ C No.6852 of
2023 (Ram Kali vs. District Judge,
Hardoi and Others) decided on 9.8.2023
and in the case reported in 2023 (1) ADJ
693, Parshuram vs. State of U.P. in order
to demonstrate that the remedy against the
final order of the election tribunal will lie
in revision under Section 12-C(6) of the
Act. He submitted that no interference is
required against the impugned order and
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact
that petitioner is an elected Pradhan of the
gram panchayat concerned and the election
petition filed by respondent no.3, has been
decided
under
the
impugned
order,
allowing the election petition as well as for
recounting of the votes.

8.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, the
perusal of Section 12-C of the Act will be
relevant which is quoted hereunder:-

"12-C.
Application
for
questioning the elections -

(1) ........

(2) .......

(3) This application under subsection (1) may be presented by any
candidate at the election or any elector
and shall contain such particulars as
may be prescribed.

Explanation - Any person who
filed a nomination paper at the election
whether such nomination paper was
accepted or rejected, shall be deemed to
be a candidates at the election.

(4) The authority to whom the
application under sub-section (1) is made
shall in the matter of -

i- hearing of the application
and the procedure to be followed at such
hearing;

ii- setting aside the election, or
declaring the election to be void or
declaring the applicant to be duly elected
or any other relief that may be granted
to the petitioner, have such powers and
authority as may be prescribed.

(5)
Without
prejudice
to
generality of the powers to be prescribed
under subsection (4) the rules may
provide for summary hearing and
disposal of an application under subsection (1).

(6) Any party aggrieved by an
order of the prescribed authority upon
an application under sub-section (1)
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may, within thirty days from the date of
the order, apply to the District Judge for
revision of such order on any one or
more the following grounds, namely - (a)
that
the
prescribed
authority
has
exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it
by law; (b) that the prescribed authority
has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so
vested; (c) that the prescribed authority
has
acted
in
the
exercise
of
its
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity."

9. The perusal of operative portion of
the impugned order dated 21.8.2024,
allowing the election petition & ordering
for recounting will be necessary which is as
under :-

आदेश्‌ पत्रक
न्यायालय्‌ :्‌ उपजजलागधकारी
मण्डलः्‌ गोरखपुर, जनपद:्‌ देवररया, तहसीलः्‌
रुरपुर
वाद्‌ सांख्याः-2716/2021
कांप्यूटरीकृत्‌ वाद्‌ सांख्याः-
T202105200302716
आयुक्त्‌ यादव्‌ बनाम्‌ दयानन्द्‌ आदद
अांतगफत्‌ धाराः-्‌ 12ग, अगधननयमः-उ०प्र०्‌
पांचायती्‌ राज्‌ अगधननयम,1947
आदेर्

अतः्‌ उपरोक्त्‌ पववेचना्‌ के्‌ आधार्‌
पर्‌ याची्‌ आयुि्‌ व्‌ हरेन्र्‌ कुमार्‌ यादव्‌ की्‌
यागचका्‌
स्वीकार्‌
करते्‌
हुए्‌
पुनफमतगणना्‌
का्‌
आदेश्‌
ददया्‌
जाता्‌
है।्‌
पुनफमतगणना्‌
ददनाांक्‌ 17.09.2024्‌ को्‌ समय्‌ प्रातः्‌ 10.00्‌
बजे्‌ ननयत्‌ की्‌ जाती्‌ है।्‌ पुनफमतगणना्‌ की्‌
कायफवाही्‌
न्यायालय्‌
तहसीलदार्‌
रुरपुर्‌
स्थान्‌ रुरपुर्‌ जनपद्‌ देवररया्‌ में्‌ तहसीलदार्‌
रूदपुर्‌ व्‌ खण्ड्‌ पवकास्‌ अगधकारी्‌ रूरपुर्‌ की्‌
उपजस्थनत्‌
में्‌
कराये्‌
जाने्‌
एवां्‌
इसकी्‌
पवडडयोग्रार्ी्‌
कराये्‌
जाने्‌
हेतु्‌
आदेशशत्‌
ककया्‌
जाता्‌
है।्‌
पुनफमतगणना्‌
के्‌
समय्‌
प्रत्याशी्‌
अथवा्‌
उनका्‌
गणना्‌
अशभकताफ्‌
दोनों्‌
में्‌
से्‌
एक्‌
उपजस्थत्‌
रहकर्‌
पुनफमतगणना्‌
प्रकक्रया्‌
का्‌
ननरीक्षण्‌
कर्‌
सकते्‌ है।्‌ आदेश्‌ की्‌ प्रनत्‌ सहायक्‌ जजला्‌
ननवाफचन्‌ अगधकारी्‌ (पांचा०स्था०)्‌ देवररया्‌ को्‌
इस्‌
आशय्‌
से्‌
भेजा्‌
जाय्‌
कक्‌
वह्‌
ग्राम्‌
पांचायत्‌ महलपुरवा्‌ पवकास्‌ खण्ड्‌ रूरपुर्‌ के्‌
प्रधान्‌
पद्‌
के्‌
ननवाफचन्‌
से्‌
सांबांगधत्‌
मतगणना्‌
प्रपत्रों,
मतपत्रों्‌
का्‌
शील्ड्‌
पैकेट/बाक्स्‌ व्‌ अन्य्‌ सांबांगधत्‌ अशभलेख्‌ को्‌
लेकर्‌ ननयत्‌ नतगथ्‌ ददनाांक्‌ 17.09.2024्‌ व्‌
ननयत्‌ स्थान्‌ व्‌ समय्‌ के्‌ आधे्‌ घण्टा्‌ पूवफ्‌
उपजस्थत्‌ हो।्‌ आदेश्‌ की्‌ एक्‌ प्रनत्‌ खण्ड्‌
पवकास्‌ अगधकारी्‌ रूरपुर, जजला्‌ पांचायत्‌ राज्‌
अगधकारी/्‌
जजला्‌
ननवाफचन्‌
अगधकारी्‌
(पांचा०स्था०)्‌
देवररया्‌
तथा्‌
क्षेत्रागधकारी्‌
रूरपुर्‌ को्‌ प्रेपित्‌ ककया्‌ जाय।्‌ क्षेत्रागधकारी्‌
रूरपुर्‌
पुनफमतगणना्‌
हेतु्‌
ननयत्‌
स्थान,
नतगथ्‌ व्‌ समय्‌ से्‌ एक्‌ घण्टा्‌ पूवफ्‌ प्रभारी्‌
ननरीक्षक्‌ रूरपुर्‌ को्‌ पयाफप्त्‌ पुशलस्‌ बल्‌ के्‌
साथ्‌
पुनमफतगणना्‌
की्‌
सम्पूणफ्‌
प्रकक्रया्‌
समाप्त्‌ होने्‌ तक्‌ उपजस्थत्‌ रहकर्‌ शाजन्त्‌
व्यवस्था्‌
सुननजश्चत्‌
करने्‌
हेतु्‌
ननदेशशत्‌
ककया्‌
जाय।्‌
इस्‌
आदेश्‌
की्‌
एक्‌
प्रनत्‌
यागचका्‌
सां०्‌
टी202105200302645्‌
प्रनत्‌
हरेन्र्‌ बनाम्‌ दयानन्द्‌ की्‌ पत्रावली्‌ पर्‌ भी्‌
9 All. Dayanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
907
रखी्‌ जाय।्‌ बाद्‌ अनुपालन्‌ पत्रावली्‌ दाखखल्‌
दफ्तर्‌ हो।
ददनाांक:्‌ 21.08.2024्‌

ह०्‌ अप०

(रत्नेश्‌ नतवारी)

ननयत्‌ प्रागधकारी/

उप्‌ जजलागधकारी

रूरपुर।

आज्‌ यह्‌ आदेश्‌ मेरे्‌ द्वारा्‌ खुले्‌
न्यायालय्‌
में्‌
हस्ताक्षररत, ददनाांककत्‌
एवां्‌
उद्धोपित्‌ ककया्‌ गया।

ह०्‌ अप०

(रत्नेश्‌ नतवारी)

ननयत्‌ प्रागधकारी/

उप्‌ जजलागधकारी

रूरपुर।

10. This Court in the case of
Parshuram (supra) as well as Smt. Asha
Devi (supra) has held that after passing the
final order in the election petition, the
Prescribed Authority/Election Tribunal will
become functus officio in the matter.
Paragraph Nos. 24, 25, 26 & 27 of the
judgment rendered in Parshuram (supra)
will be relevant for perusal which is quoted
hereunder:-

"24.
From
perusal
of
the
aforesaid judgment it emerges that the
Division Bench, upon a reference, did
not agree with the view of the Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Abrar
v. State of U.P. - (2004) 5 AWC 4088
wherein it had been held that as an
election petition had been finally decided
as such a revision would lie under subsection (6) of Section 12-C of the Act,
1947.
The
Division
Bench,
after
considering the judgment in the case of
Abrar (supra) was of the view that a
mere order for recount does not finally
alter the status of the contesting parties
and it does not in any way finally
determine the status of an elected
candidate inasmuch as the finality would
only come after the disposal of the
election application as the relief of
setting aside an election or dismissing an
election application comes at a final
stage and not by mere disposal of an
application of recount or ordering
recount on deciding the issue framed for
this purpose.

25. However, the legal issue
which arises in the instant case is that
when the Prescribed Authority has
finally allowed the election petition by
means
of
impugned
order
dated
21.12.2021
and
has
directed
for
recounting then after disposal of the
election petition, the Election Tribunal
would become 'functus officio' and no
subsequent order can be passed in this
regard by the Election Tribunal.

26. This aspect of the matter
has been considered by a seven Judges
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Hari Vishnu
Kamath vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and
others - AIR 1955 SC 233 wherein the
Constitution Bench has held as under:-

"19. Looking at the substance
of the matter, when once, it is held that
the intention of the Constitution was to
vest in the High Court a power to
supervise decisions of Tribunals by the
issue of appropriate writ and directions,
the exercise of that power cannot be
defeated by technical -considerations of
form and procedure. In P. C. Basappa v.
T. Nagappa -AIR 1954 SC 440, this
Court observed:
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"In
view
of
the
express
provisions in our Constitution we need
not now look back to the early history or
the procedural technicalities of these
writs in English law, nor feel oppressed
by any difference or change of opinion
expressed in particular cases by English
Judges. We can make an order or issue a
writ in the nature of 'certiorari' in all
appropriate cases and in appropriate
manner, so long as we keep to the broad
and fundamental principles that regulate
the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter
of granting such writs in English law"

It will be in consonance with
these principles to hold that the High
Courts have power under article 226 to
issue writs of certiorari for quashing the
decisions
of
Election
Tribunals,
notwithstanding
that
they
become
functus officio after pronouncing the
decisions."

(emphasis by the Court)

27. From a perusal of the
aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that
after the Election Tribunal pronounces
its decision, it becomes 'functus officio'."

11. In Smt. Asha Devi (supra) also,
this Court has held in paragraph no.16 that
there is no provision under the Act
authorizing the Prescribed Authority to reentertain the election petition, which has
already been decided and modify the
previous order passed by him or to pass
subsequent order in furtherance of the
previous order. Paragraph No.16 of the
judgment rendered in Smt. Asha Devi
(supra) is extracted hereunder:-

"16. In this conspectus, as
above,
I
found
substance
in
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that in view of
allowing the election petition partly, vide
order dated 2.3.2024, that too, without
fixing
any
date
for
the
further
proceedings in the election petition
intending to decide any issue or to take
final decision on said election petition,
the Prescribed Authority became functus
officio and he has an inherent lack of
jurisdiction to entertain such election
petition again and allowed the same
second time declaring respondent No. 3
as a returned candidate. It appears,
prima facie, that learned Prescribed
Authority
has
passed
order
dated
21.3.2024 in zeal, while the revision
dated 12.3.2024 was seized with the
revisional court to examine the legality
and validity of the order dated 2.3.2024.
Even assuming that no interim order
was passed by the revisional court, the
Prescribed Authority has not justified in
passing the order dated 21.3.2024 while
he had already laid his hands off from
the election petition by terminating its
proceeding finally vide order dated
2.3.2024. There is no provision under the
Act, 1947 authorizing the Prescribed
Authority to re-entertain the election
petition, which has already been decided,
and modify the previous order dated
2.3.2024 passed by him or to pass
subsequent fresh order in furtherance of
the previous order. The order under
challenge, passed by the Prescribed
Authority, is patently erroneous and
perverse to the provisions of the Act,
1947 and same is liable to be qushed
being illegal, unwarranted under the
law, cryptic and suffers from infirmity
warranting the indulgence of this Court
in
exercise
of
its
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The existence of
such
order
beget
prejudice
and
miscarriage of justice to the present
9 All. Dayanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
909
petitioner,
who
is
an
elected
representative in the democratic setup."

12. The ratio of law laid down by this
Court in Parshuram (supra) and Smt.
Asha Devi (supra), as quoted above, fully
demonstrate
that
the
Election
Tribunal/Prescribed
Authority
under
Section 12-C of the Act cannot pass the
order for finally allowing the election
petition as well as for recounting.

13. In view of the aforementioned
facts and circumstances, the impugned
order dated 21.8.2024 cannot be sustained
in the eye of law.

14. So far as the availability of
alternative remedy of revision against the
order impugned under Section 12-C(6) of
the Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Committee of
Management and Another Vs. ViceChancellor and Others reported in
2009(1) AWC 437 (SC), has held that the
alternative remedy will not be bar if the
impugned order has been passed in
violation of principal of natural justice or
the order impugned is without jurisdiction.
Paragraph No.21 of the Committee of
Management (supra) will be relevant for
perusal which is quoted hereunder:-

"21. Furthermore, when an
order has been passed by an authority
without jurisdiction or in violation of the
principles of natural justice, the superior
courts shall not refuse to exercise their
jurisdiction although there exists an
alternative remedy. In this context, it is
appropriate to refer to the observations
made by this Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (1998) 8
SCC 1:

"15. .... But the alternative
remedy has been consistently held by
this Court not to operate as a bar in at
least three contingencies, namely, where
the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental
Rights or where there has been a
violation of the principle of natural
justice
or
where
the
order
or
proceedings
are
wholly
without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. ...."

[See
also
Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr.
v. C.K. Rajan & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546]

In this case, albeit, before us for
the first time, the vires of the proviso
appended to Section 16 of the Act is in
question, besides other points noticed by
us hereinbefore."

15. This Court has repeatedly held that
the Election Tribunal cannot pass the order
for allowing the election petition as well as
for recounting together but in spite of that
the impugned order has been passed which
cannot be sustained at any ground, as such,
in place of relegating the petitioner to file
the revision, it will be just and proper to set
aside the order of Prescribed Authority
dated 21.8.2024 and direct the Election
Tribunal/Prescribed Authority to proceed
afresh in accordance with law.

16. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as the ratio of law
laid down by this Court as well as by
Hon'ble the Apex Court, the impugned
order dated 21.8.2024 is liable to be set
aside and the same is hereby set aside.

17. This Court has found that Election
Tribunal/Prescribed Authority is passing
similar type of orders without considering
the ratio of law laid down by this Court in
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Parshuram (Supra) & Smt Asha Devi
(Supra) as three writ-petitions came before
this Court within period of one week which
is not proper on the part of Election
Tribunal/Prescribed Authority of the State
who are exercising power under Section
12-C of the Act.

18. The notice has not been issued to
respondent Nos. 4 to 17 before setting aside
the impugned order as the electionpetition filed by respondent No.3 has
been allowed under the impugned order
and respondent No.3 is represented by
learned counsel as well as this Court is
remitting back the matter before Election
Tribunal/Prescribed
Authority
where
everybody will be heard.

19. The writ petition stands allowed
and the matter is remitted back before
respondent
no.2/
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/ Prescribed Authority with a
direction to register the election petition on
its original number and decide the same
afresh on the basis of evidence already
adduced by the parties, considering the law
laid down by this Court in Parshuram
(supra) and Smt. Asha Devi (supra),
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
3 months from the date of production of the
certified copy of the order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 910
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 36646 of 2009

Ranvijay Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Singh, Ch. N.A. Khan, Haridwar Singh,
J.N. Mishra, S.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

The Arms Act, 1959 - Section 17 -
Suspension and revocation of licences -
A criminal case was registered in which
the
petitioner
was
not
named.
Petitioner was implicated during the
investigation.
The
licence
of
the
petitioner was cancelled merely on the
ground of the pendency of the criminal
case. Subsequently, the criminal case
was
finally
decided,
acquitting the
petitioner
of
the
charges
leveled
against him. Held: Mere pendency of a
criminal case cannot be a ground to
cancel the firearm licence of the licence
holder. In the instant matter, the
Criminal Court honorably acquitted the
petitioner
in
the
aforementioned
criminal case based on the evidence
adduced by the parties. There was no
allegation of the petitioner using the
firearm. As such, the firearm licence of
the petitioner cannot be cancelled on
the ground of the pendency of the
criminal case. Impugned orders were
set aside. The District Magistrate was
directed to restore the firearm licence of
the petitioner. (Para 19)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Prem Vs St. of Uttaranchal & anr. 2002 (2)
J.Cr.C. 32
2. Indrajeet Singh Vs St. of U.P. & 4 Ors 2021 0
Supreme (All) 840
3. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs St. of Bihar AIR
1966 SC 740
4. Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs District Magistrate,
Basti & ors. 1978 AWC 122