# Mehmood Pracha v. E.C.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 892
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 27976 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mehmood-pracha-v-e-c-i-ors-52535
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - The Advocates Act-1961Petitioner appeared wearing his coat and band
and argued the matter without informing the
Court that he is appearing in person- Petitioner
9 All. Mehmood Pracha Vs. E.C.I. & Ors.
893
had not removed his band before arguing the
matter- This behaviour is not expected of a
Senior member of the Bar who is expected to be
aware of the basic etiquette to be followed
while addressing the Bench in person-Petitioner
directed to be cautious in the future and ensure
that he maintains the decorum and dignity of
the Court- The petitioner had filed this writ
petition through an Advocate Having done so he
could not have appeared in person without
removing his Advocate or having taken leave of
the Court- The methodology followed by the
petitioner was not only incorrect but also
mischievous and a breach of protocol. (Para
13)

Petition is dismissed with cost payable for
the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (E-15)

## Text

892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
election petitioner herself but the same has
been rejected in arbitrary manner under the
impugned order.

20. Mere signature of the election
petitioner
on
the
election
petition,
photograph of election petitioner on the
election petitioner and affidavit in support
of election petition will not amount to
presence of the election petitioner at the
time of presentation unless there is specific
order sheet regarding presence of election
petitioner at the time of presentation. In the
instant matter, there is no order sheet or any
other record to the effect that the election
petitioner was present at the time of
presentation. In the full bench decision of
Sumitra Devi (Supra) which was passed
on 12.06.2020 there was specific direction
in paragraph No.75 of the full bench to the
prescribed authorities who were exercising
jurisdiction under Section 12-C of U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to maintain proper
order sheet of the election petition regarding
presentation of election petition as such non
mentioning of the presence of the election
petitioner will result into dismissal of the
election petition as the same is incurable
defect. The limitation for filing fresh election
petition has already expired as such further
trial of election petition for adjudication of
election petition on merit is abuse of process
of law.

21. No useful purpose will be served by
remanding the matter again before prescribed
authority to examine the issue of presentation
of election petition as under the impugned
order issue regarding presentation of election
petition has been considered accordingly this
court has examined the issue of presentation
of election petition in the light of evidence
brought on record by both parties. The issue
relating to mandatory deposit of Rs.50/-
along with election petition is not required to
be adjudicated in view of the adjudication of
the issue regarding presentation of the
election petitioner by election petitioner.

22. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order
dated
05.08.2022
rejecting
the
petitioner's
objection
dated
08.07.2022
regarding
non-presentation
of
election
petition by election petitioner herself as well
as order dated 02.07.2021 entertaining the
election petition are liable to be set aside and
the same are hereby set aside. The objection
dated 08.07.2022 filed by petitioner is
allowed and election petition filed by
respondent no.1 is hereby dismissed.

23. Writ petition stands allowed.

24. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 892
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 27976 of 2024

Mehmood Pracha ...Petitioner
Versus
E.C.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Omar Zamin

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jitendra Ojha

Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - The Advocates Act-1961Petitioner appeared wearing his coat and band
and argued the matter without informing the
Court that he is appearing in person- Petitioner
9 All. Mehmood Pracha Vs. E.C.I. & Ors.
893
had not removed his band before arguing the
matter- This behaviour is not expected of a
Senior member of the Bar who is expected to be
aware of the basic etiquette to be followed
while addressing the Bench in person-Petitioner
directed to be cautious in the future and ensure
that he maintains the decorum and dignity of
the Court- The petitioner had filed this writ
petition through an Advocate Having done so he
could not have appeared in person without
removing his Advocate or having taken leave of
the Court- The methodology followed by the
petitioner was not only incorrect but also
mischievous and a breach of protocol. (Para
13)

Petition is dismissed with cost payable for
the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Mehmood Pracha,
petitioner appearing in person through
Video Conferencing and Sri Jitendra Ojha,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
Respondent No. 1.

2. This is a writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
whereby the writ petitioner has approached
the Court with the following prayers:

"A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or
any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to directing the
Respondents ensure that there is some
method for ensuring the authentication,
integrity, security, verifiability, of the
videography pertaining to the electoral
process,
recorded
and
conducted
in
accordance with the applicable guidelines,
handbooks, manuals, and instructions, is
supplied to the Petitioner.

B. Pass any other or further
orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

C. To award the cost of the
petition in favour of the petitioner."

3. It is to be noted that the writ
petitioner earlier had approached the Delhi
High Court with regard to the election of 7Rampur Loksabha Constituency, Uttar
Pradesh with regard to safeguarding and
protection of all videography and CCTV
coverage as noticed in the order dated May
16, 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court.

4. The prayer-A in that writ petition
was as follows:

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or
any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Election Commission of India
to ensure the safeguarding and protection
of all the videography and CCTV coverage
regarding elections in 7- Rampur Lok
Sabha
constituency,
Uttar
Pradesh,
including such footage recorded as per
clauses 1.3.2., 1.3.4, 2.6, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13,
6.1, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 8.2, 8.4.8, 9.5 of the
Manual on Electronic Voting Machine
(Edition 8 August 2023), for 45 days from
the date of the election of the returned
candidate;"

5. The Court after considering the
submission of the petitioner passed the
following order:

"3. In view of the aforesaid
affidavit filed by the respondent/ECI, the
petitioner confines himself to seeking that
the
aforementioned
procedure(s)/
protocol(s)
for
preserving
the
videography/CCTV footage as per the
Manual on Electronic Voting Machine
(Edition 8) August 2023 be followed in
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respect of the 7 Rampur Lok Sabha
Constituency in UP as well.

4. Learned counsel for the
respondent does not oppose the aforesaid
submission of the petitioner. He submits
that in any event, the respondent/ ECI is
bound to follow the aforesaid protocol in
respect of the electoral process in every
Lok
Sabha
constituency.
The
above
statement is taken on record.

5. In view thereof, no further
relief is pressed for by the petitioner.

6.
The
present
petition
is
accordingly disposed of in the above
terms."

6. The writ petitioner once again filed
another writ petition bearing W.P. (C)
8710/2024 before the Delhi High Court
seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ for
a direction to the respondent/Election
Commission of India to supply them with
the entire videography and CCTV footage
pertaining to the conduct of elections at 7Rampur Lok Sabha Constituency, State of
Uttar Pradesh.

7. The Court vide order dated July 16,
2024 passed the following order:

"1. It is seen that this Court on
26.06.2024 has passed certain directions:-

"6. At the outset, the petitioner
acknowledges that he has been supplied
certain data in a hard disk at the behest of
the respondent after instituting the present
petition.

7. However, it is pointed out that
in the covering letter dated 22.06.2024
issued by the Election Officer, by which the
hard disk has been supplied after filing of
the present petition, there are no details
provided as to the number of nature and
details of the data viz., the CCTV
footages/videos, time duration, and in fact
as to the contents of the hard disk.

8. It is further pointed out that
hard disk is not encrypted protected with
any hash values besides the fact that there
is no indication that the data has been
supplied to the petitioner by the respondent
pursuant to his request. In other words, the
covering letter lacks relevant particulars as
to its content, source and authenticity?

2. The petitioner appears in
person and submits that as of now his
prayer stands satisfied.

3. He, therefore, does not press
the instant petition.

4. He seeks to withdraw the
petition with liberty to take necessary steps
with respect to grievance, if any. Reserving
all rights and contentions to be raised in
accordance with law, the petition stands
disposed of as withdrawn."

8. From the aforesaid orders passed, it
appears that orders were passed to the
satisfaction of the petitioner and he had
withdrawn the writ petition bearing W.P. (C)
8710/2024 filed before the Delhi High Court.
Surprisingly, the writ petitioner has now
chosen to file a third writ petition before this
High Court seeking authentication, integrity,
security, verifiability of the videography
pertaining to the electoral process.

9. This Court is unable to understand as
to why this writ petition is now being filed in
the State of Uttar Pradesh before the
Allahabad High Court when the petitioner
has chosen to file the first two writ petitions
with regard to the same subject matter
(elections
of
7-Rampur
Loksabha
Constituency in U.P. for the year 2024)
before the Delhi High Court.

10. This Court is unable to understand
this shift being made by the petitioner when
9 All. Priyanka Vs. Smt. Madhuri & Ors.
895
the petitioner had gone on record before the
Delhi High Court stating that his prayer
stands satisfied.

11. The petitioner cannot jump or shift
mid way and choose the forum he prefers.
He could have approached the Delhi High
Court once again as the cause of action
remains the same and appears to be only
incidental to the earlier prayers granted by
the Delhi High Court.

12. Precious time of this Court has
been wasted in relation to this matter as the
petitioner insisted on having this matter
heard before this Court without taking into
consideration the fact that he has filed two
similar writ petitions in the Delhi High
Court in relation to the same subject matter.

13. Another aspect is required to be
noted by us as the same relates to decorum
to be maintained before the High Court.
When this matter was called on Mr. Omar
Zamin, Advocate appeared in Court and
submitted that his Senior who is on virtual
mode shall argue the matter. Mr. Mehmood
Pracha appeared wearing his coat and band
and argued the matter without informing
the Court that he is appearing in person. It
was only after the present order was
dictated wherein we had proposed to
impose costs on the petitioner that Mr.
Omar Zamin pointed out to this Court that
Mr. Mehmood Pracha was appearing in
person. We were taken aback as Mr. Pracha
had not removed his band before arguing
the matter before us. This behaviour is not
expected of a Senior member of the Bar
who is expected to be aware of the basic
etiquette to be followed while addressing
the Bench in person. Mr. Pracha is directed
to be cautious in the future and ensure that
he maintains the decorum and dignity of
the Court. Another aspect to be noted is
that the petitioner had filed this writ
petition through an Advocate (Mr. Omar
Zamin). Having done so he could not have
appeared in person without removing his
Advocate or having taken leave of the
Court. As is clear from the facts, none of
the above was done and accordingly the
methodology followed by the petitioner
was not only incorrect but also mischievous
and a breach of protocol.

14. In light of the fact that this writ
petition has been wrongly filed and has
resulted in loss of precious time of this
Court coupled with the inappropriate
methodology adopted by the petitioner
appearing in person, this writ petition is
dismissed with cost payable for the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/-.

15. This cost shall be paid to the Uttar
Pradesh State Legal Services Authority
within a period of 30 days from the date.

16. In the event the cost is not paid,
Registrar General is directed to take
necessary action for recovery of the same
in accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 895
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 28525 of 2024

Priyanka ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Madhuri & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Rakesh Pande, Senior Counsel, Mr.
Shailesh Upadhyay