# Priyanka v. Smt. Madhuri & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 895
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 28525 of 2024
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/priyanka-v-smt-madhuri-ors-52537
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947-
Section 12-C - Election of Gram Pradhan
of Gram Panchayat - Election Petition -
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
by
the
impugned order allowed the election
petition and order for recounting as well
as fixed date for further proceeding. Held :
Election Tribunal cannot pass the order for
allowing the election petition as well as
for recounting together. Impugned Order
set aside. Matter remitted back before
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/
Prescribed
Authority with a direction to decide the
election petition afresh on the basis of
evidence already adduced by the parties
(Para 16, 20)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

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
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mr. G.K. Singh, Senior Counsel, Mr.
Awanish Kumar Rai

Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947-
Section 12-C - Election of Gram Pradhan
of Gram Panchayat - Election Petition -
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
by
the
impugned order allowed the election
petition and order for recounting as well
as fixed date for further proceeding. Held :
Election Tribunal cannot pass the order for
allowing the election petition as well as
for recounting together. Impugned Order
set aside. Matter remitted back before
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/
Prescribed
Authority with a direction to decide the
election petition afresh on the basis of
evidence already adduced by the parties
(Para 16, 20)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Parshuram Vs St.of U.P. & ors. Matters Under
Article 227 No. 31424 of 2024 dt 23.12.2022
2. Smt. Asha Devi Vs Prescribed Authority/Sub
Divisional Magistrate & ors. Writ C No.14461 of
2024 dt 8.7.2024
3. Athar Hussain Vs Smt. Razda Begum &
ors.2017(135) RD 128
4. Smt. Maneeta Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ
C No.10442 of 2022 dt 13.4.2022;
5. Nirdosh Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2017(136)
RD 136,
6. Smt. Jahida Begam Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ
C No.2432 of 2023 dt 29.3.2023
7. Committee of 11 Management & anr. Vs ViceChancellor & ors. reported in 2009(1) AWC 437 (SC)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Pande, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Awanish Kumar
Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.1
and the learned standing counsel for the
state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan of
Gram Panchayat Shivhad, Pargana &
Tehsil- Atarra, Block- Mahuwa, District
Banda in the election held in the year 2021.
Respondent no.1 had contested the election
and stood 2nd, filed the election petition
under Section-12-C of the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act") before respondent no.2 which
was registered as Election Petition No.2 of
2021. By way of amendment in the
aforementioned election petition, the relief
for cancelling the result of the counting and
for recounting was added vide order dated
7.6.2024. Against the order dated 7.6.2024,
the revision was filed by the petitioner
before the District Judge, Banda which is
pending as Revision No. 1 of 2024. In the
aforementioned election petition, written
statement was filed by the petitioner on
23.12.2021. Respondent no.2 vide order
dated 2.2.2022 proceeded to order for
recounting. The order dated 2.2.2022 was
challenged in revision by the petitioner
and the revision was allowed vide order
dated 23.3.2022, setting aside the order
dated 2.2.2022. The issues were framed
and parties have adduced evidence in
support of their cases. Respondent no.2
vide impugned order dated 28.8.2024 has
allowed the election petition and order
for recounting as well as fixed 30th
August, 2024 for further proceeding.
Hence, this writ petition for the following
relief:-
9 All. Priyanka Vs. Smt. Madhuri & Ors.
897

"(i) Kindly, set aside/quash to
stay the effect and operation of the
impugned
order
dated
21.8.2024
(Annexure No.1 to this writ petition)
passed
by
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/Competent
Authority,
Atarra, District - Banda, i.e. the
respondent
no.2
in
Case
No.RST/761/2022 (Computerized Case
No.T-202207110300761) (Madhuri vs.
Priyanka and Others)"

3. This Court on 30.8.2024 passed the
following order:-

"1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Pandey,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Birendra
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.1 and learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner submitted that in view of
the ratio of law laid down by Lucknow
Bench in the Matters Under Article 227
No.31424 of 2021, Parshuram vs. State of
U.P., the impugned judgment passed by
the prescribed authority cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.

3. On the other hand, Mr. G.K.
Singh,
learned
Senior Counsel
for
respondent no.1 submitted that the writ
petition is not maintainable against the
order passed by the prescribed authority
if the argument of the petitioner is
accepted that order of the prescribed
authority is final order. He further
submitted that against the final order,
the revision will lie under Section 12 (C)
(6) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

4. Put up this case as fresh on
2.9.2024 at 2:00 P.M. and learned
counsel for the parties shall address the
Court as to whether revision will lie
against
the
impugned
order
of
prescribed authority dated 21.8.2024."

4. On 2.9.2024, following order was
passed by this Court:-

"1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Awanish
Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent
no.1
and
the
learned
standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 &
3.

2. Judgment reserved.

3. Put up for delivery of
judgment on 18.9.2024.

4. Till the date of delivery of
judgment, the effect and operation of the
order
dated
21.8.2024,
passed
by
respondent no.2 shall remain stayed."

5. 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 respondent no.2 has failed to
consider paragraph no.12 of the election
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition which was added by an amendment
dated 25.4.2022. 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
2017(135) RD 128, Athar Hussain vs.
Smt. Razda Begum and Others in support
of his argument.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent no.1
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 in Writ C
No.10442 of 2022 (Smt. Maneeta Devi vs.
State of U.P. and 8 Others), decided on
13.4.2022;
in
the
case
reported
in
2017(136) RD 136, Nirdosh Tyagi vs.
State of U.P. and Others and in Writ C
No.2432 of 2023 (Smt. Jahida Begam vs.
State of U.P. and Others), decided on
29.3.2023 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.

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

8. 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.1, has been
decided
under
the
impugned
order,
allowing the election petition as well as for
recounting of the votes.

9.
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
9 All. Priyanka Vs. Smt. Madhuri & Ors.
899
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)
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."

10. 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 :-

आदेर् परक
न्यायालय : उपजजलाधधकारी
मण्डल : धचरकूट धाम, जनपद : बाींदा,
तहसील: अतराश
िाद सींख्या : RST/761/2022
कींपयूटरीकृत िाद सींख्या :
T202207110300761
माधुरी बनाम वप्रयींका आदद
अींतगशत धारा :- 12 ग, अधधतनयम: उ०प्र०
पींचायती राज अधधतनयम, 1947

आदेर्

याधचकाकततशया
द्िारा
माधुरी
पत्नी कुलदीप तनिासी ग्राम लर्िहद परगना
ि तहसील अतराश जजला बाींदा प्रस्तुत
याधचका स्िीकार करते हुए पुनशमतगणना
कराये जाने का आदेर् ददया जाता है। ग्राम
पींचायत लर्िहद में प्रधान पद के तनिाशचन
से सम्बजन्धत मतगणना ददनाींक 28.8.2024
को पूिाशन्ह 10.00 बजे से तहसीलदार अतराश
के न्यायालय में सम्पन्न कराई जायेगी।
जजला पींचायत राज अधधकारी बाींदा को
तनदेलर्त ककया जाता है कक मतगणना से
सम्बजन्धत समस्त आिश्यक प्रपरों /
अधीनस्थ कमशचाररयों / िीडडयोग्रािर आदद
की व्यिस्था करते हुए तनयत ततधथ को
तनधाशररत समय उपजस्थत होकर मतगणना
सुतनजश्चत कराये। आदेर् की एक प्रतत
जजला पींचायत राज अधधकारी, बाींदा को भेजी
जाए। सहायक जजला तनिाशचन अधधकारी
(पींचायत) मतपर के बक्से सील जस्थतत में
उपलब्ध कराये। परािली ददनाींक 30.8.2024
को अधग्रम कायशिाही हेतु पेर् हो।
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ददनाांक्‌ -्‌ 21.8.24
 21.8.24
 ह०्‌ अपदठत

(रावेन्र्‌ शसांह) ्‌
ननयत्‌ प्रागधकारी्‌ /्‌ उपजजलागधकारी, अतराफ

आज्‌ यह्‌ आदेश, मेरे्‌ द्वारा्‌ खुले्‌
न्यायालय्‌
में्‌
हस्ताक्षररत्‌
ददनाांककत्‌
कर्‌
उद्घोपित्‌ ककया्‌ गया।
ददनाांक्‌ -्‌ 21.8.24्‌

ह०्‌ अपदठत

21.8.24

 (रावेन्र्‌ शसांह)
ननयत्‌ प्रागधकारी्‌ /्‌ उपजजलागधकारी, अतराफ

11. 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:

"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
9 All. Priyanka Vs. Smt. Madhuri & Ors.
901
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'."

12. 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
petitioner,
who
is
an
elected
representative in the democratic setup."

13. 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
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

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

15. 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."

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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
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.
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.