# Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 305
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-03
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 9112 of 2022
- **Bench:** Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indrapal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47817
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1947-Section
12-C
r/w
U.P.
Kshetra
Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and UpPramukhs and Settlement of Election
Dispute) Rules,1994-the Petitioner was
aggrieved by tilting of the result against
him because of alleged unfair practice
adopted during the elections-An attempt
has been made to give criminal color by
filing application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., to
essentially a civil dispute which could
have been remedied by filing election
petition-Hence, the impugned orders are
within the boundaries of law.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

11 All. Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
305
payment/tender
of
the
rent
and
consequently the tenant must be held to be
in default. In view of the aforesaid
principles of law enunciated by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of
Atma Ram (supra), it has to be held that the
tenant must comply with the requirements
of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and make the
deposits strictly in accordance with the
procedure contained therein. A deposit
which is not made in consonance with the
aforesaid Rule cannot enure to the benefit
of the tenant and, therefore, only that
amount can be deducted from the "monthly
amount" required to be deposited by the
tenant during the pendency of the suit
which
is
specifically
mentioned
in
Explanation 3 to Rule 5 (1) of Order XV
CPC. It, therefore, follows that the amount
due to be deposited by the tenant
throughout the continuation of the suit has
to be deposited in the Court where the suit
is filed otherwise the Court may strike off
the defence of the tenant since the deposits
made by the tenant under Section 30 (1) of
the Act after the first hearing of the suit
cannot be taken into consideration.

.................We, therefore, upon an
analysis of the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of
Order XV CPC, hold that while depositing
the amount at or before the first hearing of
the suit, the tenant can deduct the amount
deposited under Section 30 of the Act but
the deposits of the monthly amount
thereafter throughout the continuation of
the suit must be made in the Court where
the suit is filed for eviction and recovery of
rent
or
compensation
for
use
and
occupation and the amount, if any,
deposited under Section 30 of the Act
cannot be deducted." (emphasis supplied)

9. Similar view has been expressed in
Sunil Kumar and others v. Kapoor
Chandra Agarwal Dharamshala Trust,
2019 (10) ADJ 682.

10. There is absolutely no justification
here for the petitioner to have deposited
rent for months together before the Court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 30 of
the Act, after he had put in appearance in
the suit and filed his written statement. The
monthly rent had to be deposited in the
Court, where the suit was pending in
accordance with the provisions of Order
XV Rule 5 CPC, within a week of accrual
of rent every month. This having not been
done, the petitioner's defence has been
rightly struck off.

11. This Court is of opinion that no
case for interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution is made out.

12. This petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

13. The interim stay order dated
25.04.2022 is hereby vacated.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 305
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 9112 of 2022

Indrapal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, Sri Vijay Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1947-Section
12-C
r/w
U.P.
Kshetra
Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and UpPramukhs and Settlement of Election
Dispute) Rules,1994-the Petitioner was
aggrieved by tilting of the result against
him because of alleged unfair practice
adopted during the elections-An attempt
has been made to give criminal color by
filing application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., to
essentially a civil dispute which could
have been remedied by filing election
petition-Hence, the impugned orders are
within the boundaries of law.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA
for the State.

2. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India has been filed
challenging the order passed in Criminal
Revision No. 89 of 2021 dated 17.08.2022
whereby the order passed by the trial court
dated 04.10.2021 was affirmed and the
revision was dismissed.

3. The facts relevant giving rise to this
petition are as below:-

An application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the present
petitioner-Indrapal Singh before the Court
of Judicial Magistrate with the allegations
that in the local elections conducted for the
election of Block Pramukh, Ferozabad, the
opposite side used forged ballot papers;
some of the ballot papers were put with
forged signatures of the voters; 7 ballot
papers were not found valid because of the
tactics adopted by the opposite side; the
collusion of the government officials,
manning the elections; some of the voters
were turned out forcibly for preventing
them from voting; some of the persons
were allowed to vote, who were actually
not the voters; on some of the ballot papers,
interpolation were done, so that they may
be declared invalid; all this happened in
collusion with government officials who
are opposite side. In a nut shell, it is alleged
that the malpractice of such nature were
adopted by the opposite party nos. 1 to 10,
that tilted the result in favor of his
opponent, therefore, a case may be
registered against them and be investigated
upon.

4. On this application, the applicant
was heard by the trial court and the
application was dismissed. Two of the
grounds mentioned by the trial court are
that as the applicant had statutory remedy
to challenge the election by filing election
petition under Section 12-C of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with U.P.
Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs
and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of
Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, hence, the
application is not maintainable. Besides the
above, the trial court relied on the Article
243(o)(b)of the Constitution of India which
said that election to any panchayat shall not
be called in question except by an election
petition presented to such authority and in
such manner as is provided for by or under
any law made by legislature of the State.
After referring to the above, the learned
trial court took notice of the Rule Nos. 35
to 49 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election
of
Pramukhs
and
Up-Pramukhs
and
Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules,
1994 wherein provisions have been made
to challenge the validity of elections of
Block Pramukhs/Up-Pramukhs. In the
revision, the revisional court concurred
with the observations of the learned trial
court and finding no error in the impugned
11 All. Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
307
order dismissed the same on 17.08.2022.
The aforesaid orders have been challenged
before this Court now with a prayer to
quash them.

5. The U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and
Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 is an
enactment, which was enacted for ensuring
proper municipal governance in rural areas,
decentralization of Governmental functions
as well as to co-relate the powers and
functions of Gram Sabha under United
Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 with
U.P.
Kshettra
Panchayat
and
Zila
Panchayat. As far as question relating to
lawful election of members of Kshettra
Panchayat is concerned, Section 14(2) is as
below:-

"If any question arises as to whether
a person has been lawfully chosen a
member of a Kshettra Panchayat or has
ceased to remain eligible to be such
member the question shall be referred in
the manner prescribed to the Judge,
whose decision
shall be
final
and
binding."

The same Act provides for some
provisions under Section 264-B(1) and (2)
relevant for the subject as below:-

"(1) The election to the office of an
Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha or a member of a
Zila Panchayat and Pramukh, Up-Pramukh
or a member of Kshettra Panchayat shall
be held by secret ballot in the manner
provided by rules which shall also provide
for resolution of doubts and disputes
relating to the election of such Adhyaksha,
Upadhyaksha, Pramukh and Up-Pramukh.
(2) The superintendence, direction and
control of the conduct of election of the
office of an Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha or a
member of a Zila Panchayat and of a
Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or a member of a
Kshettra Panchayat shall vest in the State
Election Commission."

In exercise of powers under Section
237 read with Section 264-B of the U.P.
Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961, the rules have been
framed relating to matter of election of
Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs which is the
U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of
Pramukhs
and
Up-Pramukhs
and
Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules,
1994. These rules elaborately provide for
conduct of election of Up-Pramukhs in
Chapter 3 of the Rules. The Rules of 1994,
as aforesaid also provides for elaborate
procedures with regard to disputes of
election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs in
Chapter 4. Rule 35 says that an election
petition calling in question the election of
Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs may be
presented to the judge at any time within 30
days from the date of declaration of the
result under Rule 14 or Rule 29, as the case
may be. The petitioner may claim that the
election of the winning candidate was void.
The judge has been empowered to exercise
powers as provided in Civil Procedure
Code, 1990 and to grant relief in terms of
Rule 43 of the Rules of 1994. In my
opinion, the provisions of the Act read with
Rules of 1994 clearly indicate that the
matter
of
election
has
been
comprehensively
dealt
with
by
the
legislature in the relevant provisions.

6. I perused the papers on record in the
light of the submissions of the petitioner. The
grievance of the petitioner is that despite
raising a complaint to the higher authority of
use of malpractices committed at the election
in collusion with the government officials
(who happen to be respondent nos. 2 to 8 in
the present petition) and private persons (who
happen to be respondent nos. 9 to 11 in the
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present petition), no steps were taken at the
relevant point of time to stop them; the
petitioner secured 49 votes as against 59
votes secured by the elected candidate while
7 were declared invalid because of the
malpractices and tactics adopted by the
petitioners, hence, a FIR be lodged against
them and order of the revisional court as well
as the order of the trial court be quashed.

7. If an application moved under
Section 156(3) is studied, it clearly shows
that the applicant is aggrieved by tilting of the
result against him because of alleged unfair
practice adopted during the elections. The
remedy available to the applicant-revisionist
is thus filing of election petition. In may
view, an attempt has been made to give
criminal color, to essentially a civil dispute
which could have been remedied by seeking
appropriate remedy under the provisions of
the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 read with the
U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of
Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement
of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994.

8. The Apex Court has observed in
number of cases that the power conferred
under Article 227 of the Constitution casts a
duty on the High Court to keep the inferior
Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of
their authority and to see that they do what
their duty requires and that they do it in a
legal manner. It has been observed by the
courts many times that where there is grave
dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of
fundamental principles of law or justice and
where grave injustice would be done, then, in
such a situation, the Court must interfere in
pursuance to the power conferred under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

9. I do not find any ground to
interfere in the impugned orders in exercise
of powers to this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution. The impugned orders
are speaking, reasoned and within the
boundaries of the law.

10. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 308
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

PIL(Civil) No. 115 of 2022

Ishita Foundation Metro City ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pushpila Bisht

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Neerav Chitravanshi, Sanjay Singh

A. PIL-Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226-Electricity Act, 2003-Sections 62(1)
r/w 86(1)(a) read with Regulation 6 of
U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004-
no evidence to show proceedings relating
to determination of power tariff are
vitiated-petitioner has nowhere stated as
to what according to it should be the
capital cost of the projects of respondent
no. 4 for the purpose of determination of
tariff-the representation made by the
petitioner to the Regulatory Commission
nowhere has it been stated or disclosed as
to what should be taken to be the capital
cost of the projects-if the petitioner had
any objection, he must have participated
in
the
public
hearing
before
the
Regulatory
Commission
and
filed
its
objection-Instead of participating in the