Cross-examination forms part of natural justice in election disputes, yet under Rule 4 the Tribunal may permit it only when the applicant shows sufficient reasons establishing necessity and relevance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is a returned candidate in the election to the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Parwa, Block Chhanvey, Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur, U.P. The first respondent, the unsuccessful candidate, filed election petition before Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, acting as Election Tribunal challenging appellant’s election. The election petitioner examined two witnesses. The appellant sought cross-examination of said witnesses which was denied by the Sub-Divisional Officer¹ [Vide order dated 08.06.2022 in Election Petition No. 7424 of 2021] and the appellant’s writ petition under Article 226 challenging the same came to be dismissed by the High Court.² [Vide order dated 21.07.2023 in Writ (C) No. 23513 of 2022] Thus, the present appeal is by the returned candidate.

3. Short facts germane and necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows:

3.1 Elections to the office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Parwa, were notified by the State Election Commission on 26.03.2021. Pursuant thereto, the elections were conducted on 26.04.2021 with eight candidates, including the appellant and first respondent, contesting for the said post. Upon counting of votes, it was found that the appellant had secured 286 votes, whereas first respondent, secured 285 votes. Appellant was hence declared elected on 03.04.2021 and a certificate was issued in his favour by the competent authority.

3.2 Aggrieved by the declaration of appellant as returned candidate, the first respondent instituted Election Petition on 14.06.2021 under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur. The present appellant entered contest in the said proceedings by filing his written statement and disputing the assertions made in the election petition. The controversy thereafter proceeded to trial before the Election Tribunal.

3.3 During the course of proceedings, two witnesses, namely Vijay Shankar and Ramesh Chandra, tendered their evidence by way of affidavit in examination-in-chief in April 2022. Thereafter, on 27.04.2022, the appellant moved an application seeking permission to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses, asserting that such cross-examination was necessary for testing the veracity and credibility of their statements and for an effective adjudication of the election dispute.

3.4 The Election Tribunal, however, by order dated 08.06.2022, rejected the appellant’s application for cross-examination. Challenging the said order, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ petition which came to be dismissed vide order impugned before us.

4. The High Court, by judgment and order dated 21.07.2023, dismissed the writ petition, holding that in view of proviso (ii) and (iv) of Rule 4 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, (hereinafter “Rules 1994”) the Election Tribunal was not bound to permit cross-examination. For ready reference, the relevant portion of Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 is extracted below:

“4. Hearing of the petition:

(1) Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules, every election petition shall be tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the trial of suits:

Provided that:

(i) the Sub-Divisional Officer may hear the petitioner or his counsel and if he finds that the petition has no