Back
2012 Supreme(All) 1685
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Anita -Appellant
Versus
Election Tribunal/Additional District Judge and Another -Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 13595 of 2012
Decided On : 09-07-2012
Counsel for the Petitioner: K. N. Tripathi , Nipitn Singh.
Counsel for the Respondents: V. C. Dixit
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of filing a correct affidavit and the consequences of contesting an election illegally, fraudulently, and by misrepresentation.
Headnote:
Election Petition - U.P. Municipalities Act 1960 - Section 20 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1960, which deals with disqualification for contesting elections. The court emphasized the importance of filing a correct affidavit and the consequences of contesting an election illegally, fraudulently, and by misrepresentation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the election for the position of Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat Bhokerhedi, and was challenged by respondent no.2 for being below the age of 30 at the time of nomination. The petitioner's applications for rejection of the election petition were rejected, and the election petition could not be decided expeditiously, resulting in the petitioner completing five years of the term.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reliefs sought in the election petition were not entirely rendered infructuous, and some of the reliefs claimed by respondent no.2 could not be granted due to the efflux of time. The court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for contesting the election, the delay in the disposal of the election petition, and the reliefs sought by respondent no.2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of filing a correct affidavit and the consequences of contesting an election illegally, fraudulently, and by misrepresentation. It also highlighted the need for expeditious disposal of election petitions to prevent candidates from benefiting from delaying tactics.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. Five Thousand only.
1. Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nipun Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri V.C. Dixit for caveator and respondent no.2.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.2.2012 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.2, Muzaffar Nagar, rejecting her application no. 148/C (Annexure-8 to the petition), wherein she requested for rejection of election petition challenging her election as 'Adhyaksh', Nagar Panchayat, Bhokerhedi, District Muzaffar Nagar on the ground that she has already completed her term and the Government has now appointed Administrator and, no cause of action survives further to maintain the election petition.
3. The petitioner contested the election of Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat Bhokerhedi, District Muzaffar Nagar held in October 2006 pursuant to State Election Commission's Notification dated 24.9.2006. The petitioner succeeded and was elected as Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat, Bhokerhedi.
4. Respondent no.2 Smt. Beena, wife of Sri Gyanendra challenged election of petitioner vide Election Petition no.519 of 2006 on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified for contesting election being below age of 30 years at the time of nomination. This objection was raised by respondent no.2 at the time of nomination also but did not find favour with the Returning Officer. Hence, she challenged election of petitioner under Section 20 of U.P. Municipalities Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1960"). Respondent no.2 sought three prayers in the above petition:
@ Hindi @
(a) That the petition of the petitioner be allowed and the petitioner be declared Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat, Bhokarhedi.
(b) That if, for any reason, the petitioner is not declared elected to the office of Chairperson, then re-election may be held for the casual vacancy of Chairperson, Nagar Panchayat, Bhokarhedi and proceedings be initiated against respondent no. 1 in a criminal court for filing a false affidavit in respect of her age.
(c) That any other relief that can be granted in favour of the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted. (English Translation by Court)
5. The petitioner contested the election petition filing a written statement wherein she admitted to have passed High School in 1985 and Intermediate in 1987 though she disputed the allegation of respondent no.2 that her age at the time of nomination was 27 years and odd, i.e. even less than 28 years. She also filed application for rejection of election petition on the ground of non-disclosure of cause action etc.
6. Petitioner's applications for rejection of election petition in limine, i.e., under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. were rejected vide orders dated 29.1.2008, 23.10.2007 and 21.3.2007 whereafter she came to this Court in Writ Petition No.108 of 2008 which was decided on 29.6.2009. This Court found that objections raised by petitioner i.e., Smt. Anita, were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious. The Court also observed that petition should be decided expeditiously and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by Election Tribunal and in case any adjournment is necessary, it shall be on heavy cost which shall not be less than Rs.1000/- per adjournment and shall not be of more than one week or maximum two weeks. Intention of this Court is very clear that it desired to ascertain disposal of election petition on merits expeditiously and in any case within the tenure of returned candidate so that all the issues agitated in election petition are decided without rendering any one of them infructuous.
7. This desire, however, ultimately remained on paper and election petition in fact, was/could not be decided by Tribunal expeditiously. In the meantime, the petitioner completed five years of term rendering at least some part of the election petition infructuous. The Court below in the i
