The service of notice and the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in election disputes.

JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Both petitions, i.e., Writ – C No. 26057 of 2021 and Matters under Article 227 No. 26250 of 2021 were connected by order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Court and were heard together and are being decided by a common order.

2. Heard Sri Girish Chandra Sinha assisted by Sri Rudra Mani Shukla, Advocates for the petitioner, Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates for respondent no. 1 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 7, the Election Commission and the State Government represented by their respective Standing Counsel.

3. The dispute in the present petitions relates to the election of the Gram Pradhan of Village - Ramgarh, Development Block - Shivgarh, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh held on 19.4.2021. The post was reserved for woman (General). The petitioner and respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 were candidates in the elections in which the petitioner was declared elected defeating the respondent no. 1 by a margin of about 60 votes. On 3.6.2021, the respondent no. 1 filed Election Petition, i.e., Case No. 1542 of 2021 under Section 12-C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act’) before the Deputy District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Prescribed Authority’). The issues in the present case relate to correctness of the proceedings in Case No. 1542 of 2021 and certain orders passed in the case, therefore, the proceedings of the case are being narrated in detail.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that Election Petition was filed by the lawyer of respondent no. 1 and was accepted by the Prescribed Authority in the absence of respondent no. 1. The order-sheet of the case does not contain any order passed by the Prescribed Authority to issue notice on the Election Petition. An order dated 3.6.2021 directing that notices be issued to the defendants is transcribed on the Election Petition, a copy of which was handed over to the Court during the arguments and was taken on record. The order-sheet of the case shows that on 3.6.2021, the Prescribed Authority only acknowledged the presence of respondent no. 1 and his counsel while submitting the Election Petition and fixed 1.7.2021 as the next date in the case. The order-sheet has been annexed as Annexure No. C.A. - 5 to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 1 filed in Petition No. 26057 of 2021. On 3.6.2021 itself, notices were issued by the office of the Prescribed Authority notifying 15.7.2021 as the date in the case. The copy of the notice is annexed as Annexure 5 to the petition. The notice has not been specifically denied by the respondent no. 1 in his counter affidavit. The order-sheet of the case further shows that on 1.7.2021, the Prescribed Authority took note of the fact that notices had been issued in the case and fixed 15.7.2021 as the next date. The recital on the order-sheet of the case on 1.7.2021 is : - i=koyh is'k i{kks dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k i=koyh fnukad 15-07-2021 dks is'k gks Case presented, parties issued notice, Put up on 15.7.2021). On 15.7.2021, the Prescribed Authority recorded that notices had been served on the opposite parties in the election petition and fixed 29.7.2021 as the next date in the case. On 15.7.2021, the respondent no. 1, i.e., the election petitioner also filed an application before the Prescribed Authority alleging that the petitioner was avoiding notice in the election petition and, therefore, notices be issued to the petitioner by registered post. On the aforesaid application, the Prescribed Authority passed an order on the same date directing the Reader of the court to issue notice by registered post. The order to issue notice by registered post has also not been transcribed on the order-sheet of the case but has been transcribed on the application dated 15.7.2021. It appears from the receipts annexed with the counter affidavit of