# Rajendra Kumar v. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-12
- **Case number:** Election Petition No. 6 of 2014
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-kumar-v-kunwar-bhartendra-singh-50745
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

People Act,1951-Section 125A-Relief sought
by Election-Petitioner was to declare the result
of Returned Candidate to be null and void and
set aside the order dated 24.03.2014 whereby
objections filed by petitioner were rejected and
Nomination Form of Returned Candidate was
accepted---The election petition does not survive
since it would be a futile exercise to adjudicate the
same at this stage after not only term of Lok Sabha
2014-2019 was over but term of subsequent Lok
Sabha 2019-2024 is likely to be over within few
months---
Election-Petitioner
is
carrying
an
impression that since his Nomination Form was
rejected by Returning Officer, it amounts to be a
dent on his public image that he has undertaken
something illegal or there was something fishy in his
Nomination Form. However, from bare perusal of
order passed by the Returning Officer, the
impression does not appear to be true. Therefore,
the impression of Election-Petitioner is baseless
which is also supported and evident by subsequent
events--- It is an old saying that in a political life,
there are no permanent enemies or friends. Both
Election-Petitioner and Returned Candidate have
declared themselves to be dedicated workers of the
said National Political Party and the Election petition
was filed only to clear a cloud of doubt which might
have created by rejection of Nomination Form of
Election-Petitioner. (Para 26, 29 & 30)

Election Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh
1165
Phase-IV of the entire project, in issue, in
which Tower-W and flat in issue is situated,
would be covered under the expression
'ongoing project', as such, the claim raised
by the respondents under the Act of 2016
was maintainable and accordingly, the
Tribunal rightly allowed the claim of the
respondents, which does not suffer from
any error of law and as such, in the instant
appeal, no substantial question of law is
involved. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
Cost made easy.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1165
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Election Petition No. 6 of 2014

Rajendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Kunwar Bhartendra Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, Sri Rajendra Kumar
In Person, Sri B.P. Singh Dhakrey, Durga
Singh, Sri K.S. Jadaun, Sri N.K. Pandey,
Sudha Pandey, Sri Navin Sinha (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri K.R. Singh, Sri Triloki Singh, Sri H.P.
Singh, Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh, Sri R.K.
Jain

Election Petition- The Representation of
People Act,1951-Section 125A-Relief sought
by Election-Petitioner was to declare the result
of Returned Candidate to be null and void and
set aside the order dated 24.03.2014 whereby
objections filed by petitioner were rejected and
Nomination Form of Returned Candidate was
accepted---The election petition does not survive
since it would be a futile exercise to adjudicate the
same at this stage after not only term of Lok Sabha
2014-2019 was over but term of subsequent Lok
Sabha 2019-2024 is likely to be over within few
months---
Election-Petitioner
is
carrying
an
impression that since his Nomination Form was
rejected by Returning Officer, it amounts to be a
dent on his public image that he has undertaken
something illegal or there was something fishy in his
Nomination Form. However, from bare perusal of
order passed by the Returning Officer, the
impression does not appear to be true. Therefore,
the impression of Election-Petitioner is baseless
which is also supported and evident by subsequent
events--- It is an old saying that in a political life,
there are no permanent enemies or friends. Both
Election-Petitioner and Returned Candidate have
declared themselves to be dedicated workers of the
said National Political Party and the Election petition
was filed only to clear a cloud of doubt which might
have created by rejection of Nomination Form of
Election-Petitioner. (Para 26, 29 & 30)

Election Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kashi Nath Mishra Vs Vikramaditya Pandey &
ors.(1998) 8 SCC 735

2. Loknath Padhan Vs Birendra Kumar Sahu,
AIR 1974 SC 505

3. Chandra Mohan Shukla Vs Anil Dhirubhai
Ambani & ors., 2010(10) ADJ 63 (LB)

4. Prempal Singh Vs Satya Pal Singh Baghel
(2020) 0 Supreme (All) 658

5. Dhartipakar Madanlal Agarwal Vs Rajiv
Gandhi: (1987) Supp. SCC 93

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In present election petition this
Court has passed following order on 29th
August, 2023:

"Order
on
Restoration
Application No. 9 of 2023
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. This is an application for recall
of the order dated 04th August, 2023,
whereby
the
election
petition
were
dismissed for want of prosecution.

2. Cause shown for absence of
learned counsel for election-petitioner, is
sufficient. The order dated 04th August,
2023 is recalled and the election petition is
restored to their original number. This
application is accordingly allowed.

Order on Memo of Petition

1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Srivastava,
learned counsel for election petitioner and
Sri K.R. Singh, Advocate for returned
candidate.

2. Learned counsel appearing for
returned candidate-respondent at the outset
submits that since this election petition is
pending for last more than nine years and
in between relevant period of returned
candidate has already been over and even
thereafter the term of next Lok Sabha is
likely to be over within few months,
therefore, there are certain judgments of
Supreme Court as well as this Court that at
this stage entire exercise would be
academic. He further submits that since
petitioner has challenged rejection of his
nomination form on ground being improper
and illegal, therefore, it would be a futile
exercise to hear the election petition on
merit. Learned counsel has placed reliance
on Supreme Court's judgments in Loknath
Padhan vs. Birendra Kumar Sahu, AIR
1974 SC 505; Kashi Nath Mishra vs.
Vikramadiya Pandey and others (1998) 9
SCC 735 as well as this Court's judgment
in Chandra Mohan Shukla vs. Anil
Dhirubhai Ambani and others, 2010(10)
ADJ 63 (LB) and Prempal Singh vs. Satya
Pal Singh Baghel and others, (2020) 0
Supreme (All) 658.

3. Learned counsel for election
petitioner submits that there are specific
averments
in
election
petition
that
nomination form submitted by returned
candidate was a forged document, which
contains false declaration also, therefore, it
would be an offence under Section 125-A of
Representation of People Act, 1951 and in
case contention of election petitioner found
true, the legal consequence would fall
which shall include adverse effect on
benefit granted to returned candidate so far
as pension etc. are concerned and punitive
consequence under Article 104 of the
Constitution would also fall. He submits
that judgments cited by learned counsel for
returned candidate are distinguishable on
facts of the case. Learned counsel for
petitioner has read out the averments made
in election petition specifically para 15 as
well as reasons given by Returning Officer
while
accepting
nomination
form
of
returned candidate.

4. Put up on 12th September,
2023 for orders on above issue."

2. The issue raised before this Court
is, whether due to efflux of time this
election petition, which is arising out of a
dispute of General Election-2014, when not
only tenure of that Lok Sabha was already
over in 2019 but tenure of present Lok
Sabha is about to be over in 2024, i.e.
within few months, has become infructuous
or if survives, it would only for an
academic purpose?

3. In order to appreciate the rival
submissions on above referred issue, few
facts which are not in dispute are necessary
to refer hereinafter.

4. The Election Petitioner-Rajender
Kumar, an active member of a National
Political Party (Bhartiya Janta Party) for
last few decades, was set up as a candidate
from 04-Bijnor Parliamentary Constituency
9 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh
1167
of District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh for
Parliamentary Election of year 2014. He
accordingly submitted his Nomination
Form alongwith party symbol accompanied
by Form A and Form B in accordance with
provisions
of
Election
Symbols
(Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

5. It appears that Returned Candidate
was later on set up as a candidate for above
referred Parliamentary Constituency and he
also submitted Nomination Form alongwith
all requisite documents.

6. The Election-Petitioner filed
objections to Nomination Form submitted
by Returned Candidate being set up by
same National Political Party. However, the
Returning Officer vide order dated 24th
March,
2014
rejected
objections
of
Election-Petitioner and Nomination Form
of Returned Candidate was accepted.

7. Rest is history, since RespondentKunwar Bhartendra Singh, was declared a
Returned Candidate by defeating his
nearest rival by more than 2.5 lacs votes
and he in capacity of Member of
Parliament from 04-Bijnor Parliamentary
Constituency,
has
participated
in
proceedings of Parliament as well as
undertaken other responsibilities as and
when entrusted upon him.

8. Tenure of 16th Lok Sabha came to
an end in 2019 and thereafter fresh election
was conducted and respondent has again
participated as a candidate of said National
Political Party, however, this time he lost. It
is also not in dispute that tenure of current
Lok Sabha (17th Lok Sabha) is likely to
conclude within few months.

9. During arguments the Court has
interacted with Election-Petitioner and
Returned Candidate and found that there
are no personal grudges between them,
rather they have supported each other
during their political career. The ElectionPetitioner or his family members were also
supported as and when they were set up for
any other election by same National
Political Party and they are still good
political friends.

10. As referred above the ElectionPetitioner is mainly aggrieved that his
Nomination Form submitted being a duly
set up candidate by said National Political
Party was erroneously rejected by the
Returning Officer as well as there was no
reason for National Political Party to set up
respondent/Returned
Candidate
as
it's
candidate when he was already set up as
candidate and this act has dented his public
image,
not
only
in
his
political
constituiency but otherwise also.

11. Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned
counsel for Election-Petitioner, has urged
that cause still survives and even today
legal consequence of this Election-Petition
would fall. He also submitted that the
judgments
relied
upon
by
Returned
Candidate are distinguishable on facts. An
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
filed by Returned Candidate was dismissed
on 08.04.2022 and an Special Leave
Petition against the order was filed before
Supreme Court as well as this Court has
framed
following
three
issues
on
13.04.2022:

"(i) Whether the nomination
paper of the election petitioner was
improperly rejected by the Returning
Officer in view of Section 100(1)(c) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 ?

(ii) Whether the Returning Officer
had committed illegality in accepting the
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nomination
paper
of
the
Returned
candidate and by improper acceptance of
the nomination paper of the Returned
candidate, the result of the election, in so
far as it concerns the Returned candidate
has been materially affected ?

(iii) To what relief, if any, is the
election petitioner entitled to ?"

12. Per contra, Sri K.R. Singh,
learned counsel appearing for Returned
Candidate/ sole respondent, on the strength
of judgments cited, has submitted that it
would be only a futile exercise to proceed
to decide the present election petition,
which may be curtailed at this stage.

13. In order to consider the above
referred submissions, the Court proceed to
consider the judgments cited before this Court.

14. Supreme Court in Kashi Nath
Mishra vs. Vikramaditya Pandey and others
(1998) 8 SCC 735 by a short order dismissed
an election petition on the ground that term of
assembly has expired by efflux of time and
thereafter another election was also held and
another assembly was constituted. For reference
the said order is reproduced hereinafter:

"1. This appeal arises from
Election Petition No. 4 of 1991 filed under
Section 81 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951. The appellant had
challenged the election of the second
respondent to the U.P. Legislative Assembly
from the 227 Ballia Assembly Constituency
in District Ballia. The election petition was
dismissed. The term of the Assembly has
expired by efflux of time; thereafter,
another election has been held and
another Assembly constituted.

2. Under these circumstances,
the appeal having become infructuous is
dismissed. No costs." (Emphasis supplied)

15. Next judgment is in Loknath
Padhan vs. Birendra Kumar Sahu, AIR
1974 SC 505 wherein Supreme Court has
held as under:

"6. We are, therefore, of the view
that, the Orissa Legislative Assembly
being dissolved during the pendency of
this appeal, it is now wholly academic to
consider whether the respondent was
disqualified under Section 9A at the date
of nomination and since that is the only
ground
on
which
election
of
the
respondent is challenged, we think it
would be futile to hear this appeal on
merits. We accordingly dismiss the appeal
with no orders as to costs all throughout."
(Emphasis supplied)

16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Chandra Mohan Shukla vs. Anil
Dhirubhai Ambani and others, 2010(10)
ADJ 63 (LB) has held that:

"22.
Keeping
in
view
the
submission made by learned counsel for
the parties it appears that whenever in a
petition, which includes election petition,
the relief claimed with regard to main
issue involved becomes redundant or
infructuous then for other relief courts
may exercise its discretion and may not
proceed further in case right of the
plaintiff or dependent satisfied or no
grievance
remained
pending
against
defendant or respondents because of the
change circumstances. Court may use its
discretion to drop the proceeding and may
not proceed further in a matter even if,
some relief of academic nature stand
survive. In the present case, admittedly the
term of respondent no. 1 to 4 expired and
vacancy has been filled up by fresh
election accordingly even if the impugned
provision is struck down or the case of
9 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh
1169
Kuldip Nayar (supra) is distinguished
because of larger bench neither the
petitioner
will
have
any
gain
nor
respondent no. 1 to 4 will suffer from any
loss like loss of office as the member of
Rajya Sabha. The things remain for
adjudication would be the validity of
impugned provision after taking into
account
the
judgement
of
Kuldip
Nayar(supra).
Observation
made
by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajeev Gandhi that time of the court is
precious one and academic exercise is not
warranted unless still some relief may be
granted to petitioner or the appellant may
be followed.

23. In view of above, there
appears to be no good ground to proceed
further in the matter to make academic
exercise with regard to impugned provision.
I leave the question under Relief no. 1 open
for adjudication in case warranted in some
other case if raised by a person.

24. The election petition does not
survive. Dismissed keeping the issue open
for adjudication in some other case."
(Emphasis supplied)

17. Another Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Prempal Singh vs. Satya Pal
Singh Baghel (2020) 0 Supreme (All) 658
has held that:

"23. In P.H. Pandian vs. P.
Veldurai and another ((2013) 14 SCC 685),
an appeal under Section 116-A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 was
filed questioning the judgment and order
made in the election petition in ELP.No.1 of
1996 on 29.12.1999. In this case, the Apex
Court has observed that though fresh
elections have since been held to Tamil
Nadu Legislative Assembly and to an extent
this appeal has been rendered infructuous,
the manner in which the election petition
was dealt with by the High Court causes us
concern and that necessitates our making
reference to some salient facts. Ultimately,
the Apex Court has observed that it is a
settled practice of Supreme Court not to
pronounce upon matters which are only of
an academic interest. Once the charge of
corrupt practice fails, rest of the appeal
would be rendered infructuous because
fresh elections have already taken place
and the old Assembly is no longer in
existence. Even if the appellant was to
succeed on the issue that the returned
candidate had a subsisting contract with
the Panchayat Union and the State
Government
and
was,
therefore,
disqualified to be chosen for the seat under
Section 9-A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, it would only be of an
academic interest.

24. Whenever in a petition, which
includes election petition, the relief claimed
with regard to main issue involved becomes
redundant or infructuous then for other
relief courts may exercise its discretion and
may not proceed further in case right of the
plaintiff or dependent satisfied or no
grievance
remained
pending
against
defendant or respondents because of the
change of circumstances. The court may
use its discretion to drop the proceeding
and may not proceed further in a matter
even if, some relief of academic nature
stand survive.

25.
In
the
present
case,
admittedly the respondent no.1 submitted
his resignation on 4.6.2019 from the Tundla
Constituency and the same has been
accepted by the competent authority on the
same date. The notification was issued on
4.6.2019 to give effect to the said
resignation since 4.6.2019 and thus the
vacancy of Member of Legislative Assembly
for Tundla Constituency has arisen. The
Secretariat of Legislative Assembly, U.P
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has also notified the said vacancy to the
Election
Commission
of
India
for
conducting the bye-election for filling up
the said post and therefore, the relief no.1,
as claimed by the petitioner, has become
infructuous. It is consistent view of Hon'ble
Supreme Court that time of the court is
precious one and academic exercise is not
warranted unless still some relief may be
granted to petitioner or the appellant may
be followed. No allegations are levelled in
the election petitions on corrupt practice
and therefore, this Court finds that there is
no impediment or obstacle in dismissing
this petition as the prayer itself has become
infrucutous.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and
in the light of the aforesaid decisions of
Apex Court, I am of the considered view
that nothing further survives in this matter.
The aforesaid applications preferred by the
respondent no.1 for dismissing the Election
Petition Nos.12 of 2017 and 13 of 2017 as
infructuous,
are
allowed."
(Emphasis
supplied)

18. In the present election petition the
relief sought by Election-Petitioner was to
declare the result of Returned Candidate to
be null and void and set aside the order
dated 24.03.2014 whereby objections filed
by petitioner were rejected and Nomination
Form of Returned Candidate was accepted.
No consequential relief was sought, i.e., for
fresh election.

19. I have carefully perused the
reasons given by Returning Officer while
rejecting Nomination Form of ElectionPetitioner and for reference, relevant part of
it is extracted as below:

"A revised notice in Form B, in
favour of Kunwar Bhartendra Singh has
been given by Bhartiya Janata Party.

Kunwar Bhartendra Singh has
already
made
a
declaration
in
his
nomination paper that he has been set up
by the Bhartiya Janta Party.

Undersigned is satisfied about the
genuineness of the Revised Form B. Hence,
the nomination paper filed by the present
candidate declaring himself to be a
candidate set up by the Bhartiya Janta
Party stands rejected."

20. Aforesaid reasons given by
Returning Officer were only based on
subsequent Form B submitted by Returned
Candidate. Similarly the objections filed on
behalf of Election-Petitioner which was
rejected by Returning Officer on the same
day, i.e., 24.03.2014 though referred that
Returning Officer is barred from accepting
any other form of communication regarding
rescinding of notice as valid, except from
notice in Form B submitted by prescribed
time and for that he has placed reliance on
Compendium of Instructions and as such
affidavit sworn by authorised person of the
party in favour of revised candidate has
limited legal standing from the point of
nominations. Returning Officer further held
that it cannot be denied that still it holds
evidentiary value to support the contents of
revised Form B submitted by Returned
Candidate, i.e., the respondent herein, on the
day of nomination, particularly in the face of
doubts being expressed by the objectors on
the genuineness of the revised Form B.
Returning Officer further held that he cannot
ignore the evidentiary value of the said
affidavit, in summary inquiry, particularly, to
prima facie prove the genuineness of revised
Form B submitted by Returned Candidate
and thus he accepted the Nomination Form of
revised candidate.

21. The above referred reasoning does
not contain any element of fraud or forgery
9 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh
1171
in submitting Nomination Form by the
Election-Petitioner being set up a candidate
by said National Political Party. Returning
Officer has rather given more evidentiary
value to the affidavit as well as revised
Form B submitted by the Returned
Candidate that his form was also genuine.
The issue, whether a political party has
power or not to set up another candidate
and procedure thereof would be an
academic question.

22. Learned counsel for ElectionPetitioner
has
argued
that
legal
consequence would fall if this election
petition is allowed but in my considered
opinion this argument has no legal basis
and for that I have carefully perused
Section 125A of Representation of People
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1951") which prescribes penalty for filing
false affidavit. In this regard a brief
reference of paragraphs no. 56, 57, 58 and
59 of election petition would be relevant to
the extent that the contents thereof do not
effectively alleged that it was a case of
false affidavit rather a case was set up that
to issue a subsequent Form B was beyond
power,
therefore,
according
to
my
considered view no legal consequence
would fall on Returned Candidate under
Section 125A of Act, 1951 if this election
petition is allowed.

23. I have also carefully perused
Article 104 of the Constitution, which
provides penalty for sitting and voting
before making oath or affirmation under
Article 99 or when not qualified or when
disqualified. However, according to my
considered opinion the facts of present case
do not fall under the said provision since
Returned Candidate has subscribed an oath
or affirmation to set up or set out under
third schedule after duly elected in election
and there was no allegation that election
was not conducted properly. The only
dispute was that whether Nomination Form
of Election-Petitioner was rejected wrongly
or not and Nomination Form of Returned
Candidate was rightly accepted or not as
evident from issues framed in this election
petition
on
13.04.2022.
Subsequent
proceedings or process of election have not
been
disputed.
Therefore,
no
legal
consequence would fall on the ground also
even this election petition is allowed.

24. In view of above discussion, the
above referred judgments become relevant
wherein a consistent view has been taken
that due to efflux of time especially when
subsequent election of Lok Sabha was also
held, to adjudicate election petition at this
stage would be a futile exercise and it
would only for academic purpose.

25. At this stage para 4 of the
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Dhartipakar Madanlal Agarwal vs. Rajiv
Gandhi: (1987) Supp. SCC 93, would be
relevant to extract hereinafter:

"4. The election under challenge
relates to 1981, its term expired in 1984 on
the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, there-
after another general election was held in
December, 1984 and the respondent was
again
elected
from
25th
Amethi
Constituency to the Lok Sabha. The validity
of the election held in 1984 was questioned
by means of two separate election petitions
and both the petitions have been dismissed.
The validity of respondent's election has
been upheld in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv
Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 and Bhagwati
Prasad v. Rajiv Gandhi, (1986) 4 SCC 78.
Since the impugned election relates to the
Lok Sabha which was dissolved in 1984 the
respondent's election cannot be set aside in
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the present proceedings even if the election
petition is ultimately allowed on trial as the
respondent is a continuing member of the
Lok Sabha not on the basis of the impugned
election held in 1981 but on the basis of his
subsequent election in 1984. Even if we
allow the appeal and remit the case to the
High Court the respondent's election
cannot be set aside after trial of the
election petition as the relief for setting
aside the election has been rendered
infructuous by lapse of time. In this view
grounds raised in the petition for setting
aside the election of the respondent have
been rendered academic. Court should not
undertake to decide an issue unless it is a
living issue between the parties. If an
issue is purely academic in that its
decision one way or the other would have
no impact on the position of the par- ties,
it would be waste of public time to engage
itself in deciding it. Lord Viscount Simon
in his speech in the House of Lords in Sun
Life Assurance Company of Canada v.
Jervis, (1944) AC 111 observed:

"I do not think that it would be a
proper exercise of the Authority which this
House possesses to hear appeals if it
occupies time in this case in deciding an
academic question, the answer to which
cannot affect the respondent in any way. It
is an essential quality of an appeal fit to be
disposed of by this House that there
should exist between the parties a matter
in actual controversy which the House
undertakes to decide as a living issue."

These observations are relevant
in exercising the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court." (Emphasis supplied)

26. The outcome of above discussion
is that this election petition does not
survive since it would be a futile exercise
to adjudicate the same at this stage after not
only term of Lok Sabha 2014-2019 was
over but term of subsequent Lok Sabha
2019-2024 is likely to be over within few
months.

27. Before parting with judgment, it
would be necessary to observe that delay in
deciding election petition would result
sometimes in loss of a legal battle of an
Election-Petitioner.
However,
for
that
Election-Petitioner as well as the Court has
to be more careful and has to take endeavor
to decide election petition at the earliest so
that it may not render infructuous due to
efflux of time. However, in present case,
even Election-Petitioner appears to be slow
in pursuing the election petition, as evident
from order sheet.

28. As referred above, I have
opportunity to have conversation with
Election-Petitioner and Returned Candidate
and as referred earlier the relations between
both parties are cordial so much as that
they still visit each other's house and also
support each other as and when required in
elections or otherwise. It also appears that
said National Political Party has still
confidence on both the parties.

29. The Court finds that ElectionPetitioner is more conscious of his public
image which is not an incorrect approach
since a socially and politically active
person who engaged with people of his area
always wants to carry a good public image
and good fan following. A political person
is normally image conscious since it always
carry with him. It appears that ElectionPetitioner is carrying an impression that
since his Nomination Form was rejected by
Returning Officer, it amounts to be a dent
on his public image that he has undertaken
something illegal or there was something
fishy in his Nomination Form. However, as
referred above, from bare perusal of order
9 All. Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1173
passed by the Returning Officer, the
impression does not appear to be true.
Therefore, the impression of ElectionPetitioner is baseless which is also
supported and evident by subsequent
events, when both parties have admitted
that said National Political Party has still
confidence on Election-Petitioner and his
family members and party has set up his
family members in other elections as its
candidate.

30. It is an old saying that in a
political life, there are no permanent
enemies
or
friends.
Both
ElectionPetitioner and Returned Candidate have
declared themselves to be a dedicated
workers of the said National Political Party
and it also appears that this election petition
was filed only to clear a cloud of doubt
which might have created by rejection of
Nomination Form of Election-Petitioner. As
referred
above,
this
was
only
a
misconception of the Election-Petitioner.

31. In the end this order is concluded
by reproducing a saying of an unknown
author, "Great rivalries don't have to be
built on hatred. They are built on respect,
on a respect for excellence".

32. इस स्तर पर किम्ि संस्िृत सुभाकषताकि िा उल्िेि
िरिा भी उकचत रहेर्ा:

"चन्दिं शीतिं िोिे, चन्दिादकप चन्रमाैः।

चन्रचन्दियोमगध्ये शीतिा साधु संर्कतैः।।"

(इस दुकिया में चन्दि िो सबसे अकधि शीति मािा
िाता ह , पर चन्रमा चन्दि से भी शीति होता ह , िेकिि एि
अच्छा कमत्र चन्रमा और चन्दि दोिों से शीति होता ह )

33. With aforesaid observations, this
election petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1173
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 23998 of 2023

Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 -The Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984Section 3(1) -The U.P.Revenue Code,
2006-Section 67---Whether in respect of
allegations relating to damage to Gram Sabha
properties, only proceedings for eviction under
Section 67 of the Revenue Code can be
initiated, or criminal proceedings under the
provisions of the PDPP Act can also be
proceeded with?--- The proceedings under the
PDPP Act are also distinct from matters which
are covered under the Revenue Code, and in
particular Section 67 thereof, which provides
procedure for eviction and recovery of damages
on account of unauthorized occupation and use
of land belonging to the St. under the
management of Gaon Sabha. The procedure
provided there-under is summary in nature and
is purely a civil remedy with no criminality
attached. On the other hand, any act which
constitutes a "mischief" within the meaning of
Section 2(a) of the PDPP Act, wherein the
definition of the word "mischief" has been
assigned the same meaning as in Section 425 of
Penal Code, and would relate to any act which
causes destruction of any property, or any
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, and the property