Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 17.12.2007 and 15.10.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaunpur in Election Petition No. 4 of 2006, whereby the amendment application filed by respondent No. 1 in said election petition has been allowed and election petition was held to be maintainable at the instance of respondent No. 1.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that in respect of election of Nagar Panchayat Kerakat District Jaunpur process of election was started in the month of October, 2006. However the polling had taken place on 3.11.2006 and the result of which was declared on 6.11.2006. In the said election for the office of President, the petitioner and six other persons namely Ashok Kumar Sahu, Sneh Kamal Seth, Ram Das Yadav, Kaushal Gupta, Naseeruddin and Sanjay Kumar were candidates. In the counting of votes, the petitioner had secured highest number of valid votes (3819) and was declared elected as President of Nagar Panchayat by a margin of 1550 votes. However, Ashok Kumar Sahu had secured 2269 votes, Sneh Kamal Seth had secured 05 votes, Ram Das Yadav secured 207 votes, Kaushal gupta secured 157 votes, Naseeruddin secured 25 votes and Sanjay Kumar had secured 12 votes. It is stated that although the respondent No. 1 was not in contest at all, and had secured only 5 votes out of total 6678 polled votes but he filed an election petition bearing No. 4 of 2006 in the Court of District Judge, Jaunpur challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds with a relief for setting aside the election of the petitioner and prayed for fresh election of President of Nagar Panchayat. A copy of the election petition initially filed by the respondent No. 1 is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. While filing the election petition Respondent No. 1 did not claim himself to be declared elected and arrayed only the writ petitioner and respondent No. 2 as respondents in the election petition. All the unsuccessful candidates were not arrayed as party and there were only two respondents in the said election petition.

3. The petitioner who was returned candidate and respondent No. 1 in the said election petition, filed her written statement and denied the allegations made in the election petition and further stated that the election of the petitioner was quite legal and valid. Thereafter the petitioner filed an amendment application to amend her written statement upto the extent as given in application itself. The said amendment application was filed on 27.11.2006 and was allowed on 4.12.2007 consequently suitable amendments were incorporated in the written statement by the petitioner. In the said written statement the petitioner has raised a specific plea of the maintainability of election petition for non-compliance of provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act -1916 (herein after referred to as the Act) but when the amendment in the written statement of petitioner was allowed on 4.12.2007, the respondent No. 1 who was election petitioner filed amendment application dated 4.12.2007 stating therein that he may be permitted to amend the election petition by incorporating the relief to the effect that he may be declared elected after setting aside the election. In the said application there was no prayer for impleading all the unsuccessful candidates. Admittedly the said amendment application was filed beyond a period of 30 days as provided under Section 20(1) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner filed an objection dated 17.12.2007 to the said amendment application of respondent No. 1. But in spite of the objection filed by the petitioner the amendment application of respondent No. 1 was allowed videorder dated 17.12.2007, by which relief prayed in election petition was amended and relief of declaration was added. It is further stated that though the election petition was liable to be rejected and was not liable to be heard