Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Sahabuddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C No.30425 of 2023
Decided on : 11-12-2023
Amendment Application - Election Petition - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Section 12(C)(6) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 12(C)(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. in relation to the amendment application. It emphasized the need for a liberal view in allowing amendments if required in the interest of justice and highlighted that a litigant cannot be penalized for any default or mistake on the part of the counsel.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his amendment application in an election petition. The petitioner sought to amend the revision to challenge the consequential order dated 28.07.2022, which declared the respondent as the winning candidate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment application was wrongly rejected on the grounds of delay and maintainability. It emphasized the need for a liberal view in allowing amendments if required in the interest of justice and highlighted that a litigant cannot be penalized for any default or mistake on the part of the counsel.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's amendment application in the election petition, the interpretation of Section 12(C)(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment application should be allowed if it is required in the interest of justice, and a litigant cannot be penalized for any default or mistake on the part of the counsel. It also emphasized that a time-barred relief cannot be challenged by way of subsequent amendment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the amendment application and directed the court concerned to pass a fresh order on the amendment application within 15 days. It also restrained the court from deciding the revision for a certain period and directed the revision to be decided within two months.
JUDGMENT :
Ref: Order on Amendment Application
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 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, District-Prayagraj. 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 2022[Sahabuddin vs. State of U.P. And 17 others] 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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal view in allowing amendments if required in the interest of justice, and the principle that a litigant cannot be penalized fo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between interlocutory orders and final orders under Section 12-C(6) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947, and the availability of t....
A recounting order is interlocutory and can be challenged through a writ; adequate statutory remedy exists through revision for final orders only.
Elections cannot be invalidated based on improper amendments that change the character of the petition, especially if they introduce time-barred claims, violating procedural norms.
As per Rule 3 of the Rules, an Election Petition shall be instituted within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
The revisional court has the authority to direct recounting of votes and examine material irregularities in election petitions under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
An order for recount does not dispose of the election application finally, and the burden of proof rests on the election petitioner to establish irregularity or illegality in the original counting of....
The Election Tribunal cannot simultaneously allow an election petition and order a recount, as it becomes functus officio after deciding the petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
