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

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1324
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-11
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 30425 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sahabuddin-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50893
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Amendment
Application Under U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 - Maintainability - Petitioner
challenged the rejection of an amendment
application to include a challenge to a
consequential order dated 28.07.2022 in a
revision against the order dated 15.07.2022 -
Held, the amendment application to challenge
the consequential order (declaring respondent
no.
4
as
the
winning
candidate
after
recounting) was wrongly rejected on grounds
of delay and non-maintainability under Order
6 Rule 17, C.P.C., as it sought to address a
related issue arising from the original order,
and courts should adopt a liberal approach to
amendments to serve justice, per *Vineet
Kumar
Vs
Mangal
Sain
Wadhera*
and
*Pankaja Vs Yellappa*. (Paras 5, 10, 11, 12,
19, 20, 23, 25)

B. Limitation Under Section 12(C)(6) of
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act - Respondents
argued the amendment application was timebarred
under
Section
12(C)(6),
which
mandates filing a revision within 30 days -
Held, Section 12(C)(6) applies to revisions
against the prescribed authority's final order
(here,
15.07.2022),
not
to
amendment
applications - No statutory time limit exists
for amendments, and the revisional court
erred in applying a 30-day limitation, making
the rejection on this ground unsustainable.
(Paras 7, 8, 9, 17, 18)

C. Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. - Scope in
Election Petitions - The revisional court
rejected the amendment application citing the
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, which restricts
amendments post-trial commencement unless
due diligence is shown - Held, the amendment
sought to challenge a consequential order
(28.07.2022) arising from the primary order
(15.07.2022) already under revision, and its
rejection was improper as it was necessary to
determine the real controversy - Courts have
discretion to allow amendments to avoid
injustice, even if delayed, as per *L.J. Leach &
Co. Vs Jardine Skinner & Co.* and *T.N. Alloy
Foundry Vs T.N. Electricity Board*. (Paras 10,
11, 12, 19, 20)

D. Mistake of Counsel - Impact on
Amendment - Petitioner attributed the delay
in challenging the consequential order to
incorrect legal advice - Held, litigants should not
suffer for counsel's errors, and courts must
protect parties from adverse consequences due
to such mistakes, as established in *Ashok
Kumar Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.*
- The revisional court's rejection ignored this
principle, warranting interference. (Paras 11, 14,
22)
1 All. Sahabuddin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1325
E.
Consequential
Orders
in
Election
Petitions - Respondents argued that setting
aside the primary order (15.07.2022) would
vitiate the consequential order (28.07.2022),
negating the need for amendment - Held, while
the consequential order's validity depends on
the primary order, explicitly challenging it via
amendment
ensures
comprehensive
adjudication of rights, and the revisional court
must reconsider the amendment application in
light of this and the liberal approach mandated
by
*Ramadhar
Singh
Vs
District
Judge,
Ghazipur*. (Paras 23, 24, 26)

Writ Petition Allowed - Order Dated
24.07.2023 Set Aside - Revisional Court
Directed
to
Reconsider
Amendment
Application and Decide Revision Within
Stipulated Time.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. Liberty is reserved in favour of
the petitioners to challenge the final order
dated 04.07.2023 passed under Section
38(2) of the Act of 1965 in appeal before
the tribunal under Section 98(1)(d) of the
Act of 1965, if not already challenged.

31. In case, such an appeal is filed,
the same shall be considered on merits by
the tribunal without being influenced by
any observation made by this Court in this
judgment.

32. With these observation, this writ
petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1324
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 30425 of 2023

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, Sri Kamlesh
Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, Sri Sumit
Daga

A.
Election
Law
-
Amendment
Application Under U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 - Maintainability - Petitioner
challenged the rejection of an amendment
application to include a challenge to a
consequential order dated 28.07.2022 in a
revision against the order dated 15.07.2022 -
Held, the amendment application to challenge
the consequential order (declaring respondent
no.
4
as
the
winning
candidate
after
recounting) was wrongly rejected on grounds
of delay and non-maintainability under Order
6 Rule 17, C.P.C., as it sought to address a
related issue arising from the original order,
and courts should adopt a liberal approach to
amendments to serve justice, per *Vineet
Kumar
Vs
Mangal
Sain
Wadhera*
and
*Pankaja Vs Yellappa*. (Paras 5, 10, 11, 12,
19, 20, 23, 25)

B. Limitation Under Section 12(C)(6) of
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act - Respondents
argued the amendment application was timebarred
under
Section
12(C)(6),
which
mandates filing a revision within 30 days -
Held, Section 12(C)(6) applies to revisions
against the prescribed authority's final order
(here,
15.07.2022),
not
to
amendment
applications - No statutory time limit exists
for amendments, and the revisional court
erred in applying a 30-day limitation, making
the rejection on this ground unsustainable.
(Paras 7, 8, 9, 17, 18)

C. Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. - Scope in
Election Petitions - The revisional court
rejected the amendment application citing the
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, which restricts
amendments post-trial commencement unless
due diligence is shown - Held, the amendment
sought to challenge a consequential order
(28.07.2022) arising from the primary order
(15.07.2022) already under revision, and its
rejection was improper as it was necessary to
determine the real controversy - Courts have
discretion to allow amendments to avoid
injustice, even if delayed, as per *L.J. Leach &
Co. Vs Jardine Skinner & Co.* and *T.N. Alloy
Foundry Vs T.N. Electricity Board*. (Paras 10,
11, 12, 19, 20)

D. Mistake of Counsel - Impact on
Amendment - Petitioner attributed the delay
in challenging the consequential order to
incorrect legal advice - Held, litigants should not
suffer for counsel's errors, and courts must
protect parties from adverse consequences due
to such mistakes, as established in *Ashok
Kumar Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.*
- The revisional court's rejection ignored this
principle, warranting interference. (Paras 11, 14,
22)
1 All. Sahabuddin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1325
E.
Consequential
Orders
in
Election
Petitions - Respondents argued that setting
aside the primary order (15.07.2022) would
vitiate the consequential order (28.07.2022),
negating the need for amendment - Held, while
the consequential order's validity depends on
the primary order, explicitly challenging it via
amendment
ensures
comprehensive
adjudication of rights, and the revisional court
must reconsider the amendment application in
light of this and the liberal approach mandated
by
*Ramadhar
Singh
Vs
District
Judge,
Ghazipur*. (Paras 23, 24, 26)

Writ Petition Allowed - Order Dated
24.07.2023 Set Aside - Revisional Court
Directed
to
Reconsider
Amendment
Application and Decide Revision Within
Stipulated Time.

List of Cases cited:

1. L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. Vs Jardine Skinner &
Co., (not fully cited in text but referenced in
Para 12)

2. T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs T.N. Electricity
Board, (not fully cited in text but referenced in
Para 12)

3. Amitabh Gupta Vs Awadh Bihari Nigam, (not
fully cited in text but referenced in Para 14)

4. Firoz Uddin Vs Anwar Uddin, (not fully cited
in text but referenced in Para 14)

5. Satyapal Singh Vs Firm Swastik Plaza, (not
fully cited in text but referenced in Para 14)

6. Sardar Joginder Singh Vs Nirmal Rohinson
Clifford, (not fully cited in text but referenced in
Para 14)

7. South Konkan Distilleries Vs Prabhakar
Gajanan Naik, (not fully cited in text but
referenced in Para 15)

8. Ashutosh Chaturvedi Vs Prano Devi, (not fully
cited in text but referenced in Para 15)

9. Mahajan Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs Resham
Singh, (not fully cited in text but referenced in
Para 15)
10. Jawahar Lal Vs Kanti Devi, (not fully cited in
text but referenced in Para 15)

11. Vineet Kumar Vs Mangal Sain Wadhera, (not
fully cited in text but referenced in Para 19)

12. Pankaja Vs Yellappa, (not fully cited in text
but referenced in Para 20)

13. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs
Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (not fully cited in text
but referenced in Para 20)

14. Ashok Kumar Vs New India Assurance
Company Ltd., (not fully cited in text but
referenced in Para 22)

15. Ramadhar Singh Vs District Judge, Ghazipur,
(not fully cited in text but referenced in Para 26)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Amendment application filed
today, is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
prays
to
withdraw
the
amendment
application on the ground that he will be
withdrawing the application as moved
before the revisional court for not pressing
the revision.

3. Accordingly, the amendment
application is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. The petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated
24.07.2023 passed by Additional District
and Session Judge, Court No.9, Prayagraj
vide which his amendment application has
1326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been rejected and a further prayer to direct
the court below to allow the amendment
application of the petitioner and adjudicate
the Election Petition No.3 of 2022, within
stipulated period.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in
the election for the post of Pradhan held in
the year 2021, the petitioner was declared
the winning candidate by obtaining 904
votes and respondent no.4 was the returned
candidate obtaining 901 votes. An election
petition was filed by respondent no.4 on
21.05.2021 wherein the petitioner filed
written
statement/objections.
Thirteen
issues were framed by the court concerned
and by order dated 15.07.2022 the
Presiding Officer without recording any
findings on the issues allowed the election
petition, directing for recounting of votes.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the returned
candidate was declared as the winning
candidate as per the result of the recounting
held on 28.07.2022, which showed that the
petitioner has secured a total of 899 votes
whereas the respondent no.4 has secured a
total of 900 votes, therefore, the defeated
candidate in the election was declared as
the winning candidate by one vote.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated
15.07.2022, the petitioner filed revision
before District and Session Judge, DistrictPrayagraj. On 20.07.2022, an application
was moved by respondent no.4 requesting
therein that the date for recounting may be
fixed at earliest. The prescribed authority
on the same date, fixed 28.07.2022 as the
date for recounting of votes casted in the
elections. As already mentioned, in the
recounting held on 28.07.2022 pursuant to
the order dated 15.07.2022 as passed by the
Presiding Officer directing for recounting
and allowing the election petition, the
defeated candidate-respondent no.4 was
declared the winning candidate by one
vote.
Challenging
the
order
dated
15.07.2022, Writ-C No.21191 of 20221 has
been filed, wherein as he had filed revision
also, challenging the same order, therefore,
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by
order dated 26.07.2022 dismissed the writ
petition for dual remedies having been
adopted by the petitioner leaving it open to
the petitioner to pursue remedy before the
revisional court. It is an admitted case that
the revision has been filed by directions of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court within
time. Learned counsel for the petitioner
moved an amendment application dated
20.05.2023 requesting for permission to
amend the revision for challenging the
consequential
order
dated
28.07.2022
passed
pursuant
to
the
order dated
15.07.2022
wherein
direction
for
recounting was issued. On the aforesaid
application, an objection has been filed by
respondent no.4 on 30.07.2023 on which
order impugned has been passed rejecting
the amendment application of the petitioner
on the ground of delay and application not
being maintainable under the proviso of
Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. Hence, the
present petition has been filed by the
petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that by order dated 15.07.2022, the
election petition was allowed directing for
recounting on an application moved by the
respondent no.4. Pursuant to the aforesaid
order, recounting was done on 28.07.2022
which was the date fixed on the application
as moved by respondent no.4. As the
aforesaid
recounting
has
been
done
pursuant to the order passed in election
petition, the same has to be treated as a
consequential order. However, without
noticing the aforesaid fact and due to
ignorance on the part of the counsel, he
1 All. Sahabuddin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1327
could not challenge the consequential order
dated
28.07.2022
vide
which
the
respondent no.4 was declared as winning
candidate,
therefore,
he
moved
an
application on 20.05.2023 requesting for
amendment to challenge the aforesaid
order.

6. Objections have been raised by
learned counsel for respondent considering
which the amendment application has been
rejected on the ground of delay as well as
the same being not maintainable under the
proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as per the provisions of
Section 12(C)(6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, any party aggrieved by an order of the
prescribed authority upon an application
under sub-section (1) may, within thrity
days from the date of the order, apply to the
District Judge for revision of such order on
any one or more grounds as mentioned.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner being
aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2022
filed a revision as per the provisions and
also as per the directions passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
26.07.2022 wherein Writ-C No.21191 of
2022 was dismissed on the ground of dual
remedies being adopted by the petitioner,
however, it was left open to the petitioner
to avail the remedy for filing the revision.
By
the
impugned
order,
the
Court
concerned has misread the provision of
Section 12(C)(6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, taking the limitation to be 30 days
from 15.07.2022, date vide which election
petition was allowed, for moving the
amendment
application,
whereas
the
revision has to be moved challenging the
order passed by prescribed authority which
is in the present case order dated
15.07.2022 vide which the election petition
has been decided.

9. There is no time limit provided
under the act for any application or
amendment application to be moved within
30 days. It is the order of the prescribed
authority in the election petition which is to
be challenged by way of filling revision
that has to be filed within 30 days from that
order.

10. Another ground taken by the
competent
court
while
rejecting
the
amendment application is that the same is
not maintainable as per the proviso of
Order 6 Rule 17, wherein the court may at
any stage of the proceedings allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings in
such manner and on such terms as may be
just, and all such amendments shall be
made as may be necessary for the purpose
of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties: Provided
that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced,
unless the Court comes to the conclusion
that despite due diligence, the party could
not have raised the matter before the
commencement of the trial.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the amendment application so
moved is only with respect to the
consequential order passed pursuant to the
order passed in election petition dated
15.07.2022, which has been challenged by
means of revision, therefore, there is no
question of rejecting the same on the
ground that it is barred by proviso of Order
6 Rule 17 as the revisional court has
already
started
hearing
the
revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the consequential order dated
28.07.2022 could not be challenged due to
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wrong advice of his lawyer. Thus, being
ignorant of the settled position of law, he
could not challenge the order timely and
had moved the amendment application.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has lastly submitted that it is well settled
that the Court must be extremely liberal in
granting amendment, if the Court is of the
view that if such amendment is not
allowed, a party who has moved such an
amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss
and injury. It is equally well-settled that
there is no absolute rule that in every case
where
relief
is
barred
because
of
limitation, amendment should not be
allowed. It is always open to the court to
allow amendment if it is of the view that
allowing of the amendment shall really
sub-serve the ultimate cause of justice
and avoid further litigation. In support of
his submission he has relied upon
judgment of L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. &
Anr. Vs. Jardine Skinner & Co.2 as
well as T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs.
T.N. Electricity Board & Ors.3.

13.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent, however, submits that there
is no illegality in the order impugned as
the same is barred by limitation as per
provisions of Section 12(C)(6) of U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 , wherein the
limitation for filling a revision against the
order passed by the prescribed authority
is 30 days. He further submits that the
proposed amendment to challenge the
order dated 20.07.2022 and order dated
28.07.2022 is also barred by proviso of
Order 6 Rule 17 as it is provided that no
application for amendment shall be allowed
after trial has commenced, unless the Court
comes to the conclusion that despite due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before commencement of trial.
The aforesaid orders were well within the
knowledge of the petitioner, therefore, he
could have challenged the same along with
order dated 15.07.2022 while filling the
revision.

14. The ground as taken by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
for
not
challenging the order dated 20.07.2022 and
order dated 28.07.2022 within time along
with the revision so filled challenging the
order dated 15.07.2022 was due to wrong
advice of previous counsel which cannot be
taken as a ground for considering time
barred amendment application. There are
several judgments on the point that fault on
the part of counsel cannot be a ground to
file delayed amendment application. In
support of his submission, he has relied
upon judgments passed in the cases of
Amitabh
Gupta vs. Awadh
Bihari
Nigam4, Shri Firoz Uddin And 4 Others
vs. Shri Anwar Uddin5, Satyapal Singh
vs. Firm Swastik Plaza and others6,
Sardar Joginder Singh and others vs.
Nirmal Rohinson Clifford an another7.

15. He further submits that a time
barred relief cannot be challenged by way
of subsequent amendment. In support of his
submission he has relied upon judgments
passed in the cases of South Konkan
Distilleries and Another vs. Prabhakar
Gajanan Naik and Others8, Ashutosh
Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi alias Parani
Devi and others9, Mahajan Sahkari
Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Resham Singh and
others10 and Jawahar Lal and others vs.
Smt. Kanti Devi and Another11.

16. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

17.
 Section
12(C)(6)
of
U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows :-
1 All. Sahabuddin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1329

"12-C.
Application
for
questioning the elections - (6) Any party
aggrieved by an order of the prescribed
authority upon an application under subsection (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."

18. As per the aforesaid provisions of
Section 12(C)(6) any order passed by the
prescribed authority can be challenged
within 30 days of the said order. In the
present case, the order dated 15.07.2022
was challenged by means of filling a
revision, which was within time and was
also in compliance of the order passed by
this Court in a writ filed by the petitioner.
Hence, no question of time barred revision
being filed has arisen. As regards, the
amendment application being moved after
delay of sufficient period, it cannot be said
that the same is in contravention with the
provisions of Section 12(C)(6) as it does
not speak about any application or
amendment application to be filed within
30 days of the final orders passed in the
election petition. Bare reading of the
provision goes to show that it is the
revision which has to be filed within 30
days after final decision has been passed by
the prescribed authority in the election
petition.

19. Even otherwise, if the amendment
is treated to be time barred, in case the
prayer for amendment merely adds to the
facts already on record, the same should be
allowed as has been held in the case of
Vineet
Kumar
vs.
Mangal
Sain
Wadhera12. There is no absolute rule that
the amendment in such a case should not be
allowed even if it is filed after ample delay
where the relief sought to be added is by
way of amendment. It is not an absolute
rule that if the amendment in such case i.e.
seeking amendment in the election petition
or amendment of plaint filed in a suit is
sought after ample delay, it should not be
allowed. It is the discretion of the Court to
allow the application under Order 6 Rule
17.

20. The aforesaid has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of Pankaja &
Another vs. Yellappa (dead) by lrs. And
Others13
and
Life
Insurance
Corporation
of
India
vs.
Sanjeev
Builders Private Lmited & Ors.14.

21. In several judgments it has been
held that the Court should take a liberal
view
in
allowing
the
amendment
application if it is required in the interest of
justice.

22. A litigant cannot be penalized for
any default or mistake on the part of the
counsel.
The
Courts
have
protected
litigants
from
adverse
consequences
accruing from a default or mistake of their
counsel. The aforesaid has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
vs. New India Assurance Company
Ltd15. The relevant paragraph 8 of the
aforesaid judgment is as follows :-

"In view of the foregoing, it has
to be reiterated that the complaint No. 515
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was filed after theft due to non-settlement
of claim by the Insurance Company. The
repudiation of the claim was made during
the pendency of the said complaint,
purportedly due to breach of condition
no. 1 and 5. The said complaint was
withdrawn by the advocate of the
complainant on the pretext of the case
being prolonged by the advocate of the
Insurance
Company,
without
having
express instructions for withdrawal of the
said complaint. However, for the fault of
the advocate, the complainant cannot be
made to suffer. Finally, the dismissal of
the complaint was made by the National
Commission under the wrong pretext that
the earlier complaint had challenged the
order of repudiation. Thus, in our view,
the complaint cannot be thrown out on
the threshold of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4)
C.P.C. and in the peculiar facts, it
requires consideration on merits."

23. In the present case wherein the
order dated 28.07.2022 has been passed
in
compliance
of
the
order
dated
15.07.2022 passed in election petition for
compliance of which on the application
of respondent an order dated 20.07.2022
was passed fixing 28.07.2022 as the date
of recounting, the same would be taken as
consequential order, therefore, there is no
need to reject the said amendment
application.

24. On a pointed query raised by this
Court to learned counsel for respondent as
to whether there is any requirement of
moving
an
amendment
application
challenging the consequential order dated
28.07.2022, he did not give a clear answer,
however, he admits that the final orders
passed in election petition has to be
challenged in the revision. He also could
not deny the fact that pursuant to the order
dated 15.07.2022, wherein the order
directing for recounting has been passed
and on his application, order dated
20.07.2022 was passed, fixing 28.07.2022
for recounting, pursuant to which on
28.07.2022 the respondent no.4 has been
declared
as
the
winning
candidate,
therefore without challenging the aforesaid
order, his rights cannot be taken away. He
however, submits that the order dated
28.07.2022 has been passed pursuant to the
order dated 15.07.2022 and when once the
aforesaid
order
dated
15.07.2022
as
challenged in revision is set-aside, the
consequential order dated 28.07.2022 will
also be vitiated.

25. Accordingly, the order dated
24.07.2023 is set-aside.

26. It is directed that the court
concerned shall pass afresh order on the
amendment application keeping in view the
observations as made hereinabove as well
as the law laid down in the case of
Ramadhar Singh Vs. District Judge,
Ghazipur & Ors.16, preferably, within a
period of 15 days from today.

27. It is also directed that the revision
so filed may be decided, in accordance with
law, by reasoned and speaking order,
within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order.

28. However, till 20 days from today,
the court concerned is restrained from
deciding the revision no.3 of 2022, under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

29.

With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, the writ petition
stands allowed.
----------
1 All. Smt. Ramshri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1331
(2024) 1 ILRA 1331
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANi
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 31940 of 2023

Smt. Ramshri ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Suchita Tripathi, Sri Naresh Chandra
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jay Singh Yadav

A. Panchayat Raj - Validity of Complaint
Under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of
Pradhans, UP-Pradhans and Members)
Enquiry Rules, 1997 - Petitioner challenged
the order dated 21.08.2023 ceasing her
financial
and
administrative
powers
as
Pradhan, alleging the complaint lacked proper
affidavits as required under Rule 3 of the
1997 Enquiry Rules - Held, while Rule 3(2)
and
(3)
mandate
that
complaints
be
accompanied by verified affidavits, noncompliance is an irregularity, not an illegality,
and does not vitiate proceedings, as the
District Magistrate has suo motu powers
under Rule 4 to initiate a preliminary enquiry
even without a compliant complaint, per
Vivekanand Yadav Vs St. of U.P.. (Paras 4, 5,
15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28)

B. Suo Motu Powers of District Magistrate
Under Rule 4 - Petitioner argued that the
complaint's non-compliance with Rule 3(2) and
(3) rendered the proceedings void - Held, the
term "otherwise" in Rule 4 grants the District
Magistrate authority to order a preliminary
enquiry suo motu, even in the absence of a
valid complaint or report, and the Pradhan has
no right to object to the complaint's format, as
established in Vivekanand Yadav Vs St. of U.P..
(Paras 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27)

C. Procedural Irregularities vs. Illegality -
Petitioner contended that the complaint's lack of
proper verification under Rule 3(3) invalidated
the proceedings - Held, non-filing or improper
verification of affidavits is a curable technical
defect, not an illegality, and should not defeat
substantive rights or cause injustice, as per
Uday Shankar Triyar Vs Ram Kalewar Prasad
Singh and A. Manju Vs Prajwal Revanna. The
petitioner's failure to raise this objection at the
initial stage further weakens the claim. (Paras
28, 29, 32, 33)

D. Natural Justice and Consideration of
Reply - Petitioner argued that the District
Magistrate's order was passed casually without
considering her reply to the show-cause notice -
Held, the court found no merit in this claim, as
the complaint and preliminary enquiry report
provided a basis for the order under Section
95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947,
and
the
petitioner's
reply
was
deemed
considered, with no evidence of procedural
unfairness. (Paras 3, 11, 34)

E. Purpose of Verification and Democratic
Principles - Petitioner claimed that improper
complaints undermine the democratic role of an
elected Pradhan - Held, the purpose of
verification is to ensure genuineness, but minor
procedural defects by complainants, often
illiterate voters, should not obstruct enquiries
into allegations of abuse of position, as the Act
aims to protect public interest, and technicalities
should not defeat justice, per Uday Shankar
Triyar Vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh. (Paras 9,
10, 29, 30, 31, 32)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Kesari Devi Vs St. of U.P., 2005 (4) AWC
3536

2. M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar Vs St. of
Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 65

3. A.K.K. Nambiar Vs U.O.I., AIR 1970 SC 652