IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
Smt. Maneeta Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ C. No. 10442 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Election Tribunal - Recount of Votes - 30 iz0 iapk;r jkt ,DV fu;ekoyh 1994 dh /kkjk 03¼1½, 07 fu;e 11 tkŒnh ls ckf/kr, 80¼30½, iks”k.kh;, xzke iapk;r dh erx.kuk fof/kd funsZ'kksa ,oa ikjnf'kZrk ds lkFk ugha dh x;h, ;kph ds oS/k erksa dksa voS/k ,oa izfri{kh la[;k 1 ds voS/k erksa dks oS/k djds pquko ifj.kke izHkkfor, iMs+a eriRrksa dh dqy la[;k esa vUrj, ;kph vU; mile ikus dk vf/kdkjh - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed by the successful candidate challenging the order passed by the Election Tribunal/SDM Handia, Prayagraj, directing a recount of the votes cast for the election on the post of Gram Pradhan Bhagautipur, Handia, Prayagraj.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition deserved to be allowed and a recount of votes had to be done. The court concluded that the Election Tribunal had dealt with the issues and decided the election petition, making the present petition not maintainable.
Issues: The issues included the recount of votes, findings against the petitioner, and the maintainability of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if a final adjudication has taken place in an election petition and an order of recount has been passed, the remedy available to the person aggrieved may be to file a civil revision. However, if no final order has been passed and the election petition is pending, an order of recount passed during such pendency may remain an interlocutory order which may be subjected to challenge in a writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The present writ petition was disposed of, and the court declined interference claimed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was given a right of revision against the order, and the direction for recount of votes was kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sumit Daga learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed by the successful candidate challenging the order passed by the Election Tribunal/SDM Handia, Prayagraj dated 12.1.2022 whereby the said authority hs directed for recount of the votes cast for the election on the post of Gram Pradhan Bhagautipur, Handia, Prayagraj.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order is contrary to law inasmuch as no finding has been recorded on any of the issues framed in the election petition. Specifically no finding has been recorded with respect to issue Nos. 6 and 7 framed in that petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Mustafa Vs. Up Ziladhikari, Phoolpur, Azamgarh and others, 2007(6) AWC 5536.
4. On the other hand, besides the issue on merit, Sri Sumit Daga learned counsel for respondent No.4-election petitioner has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. He would submit, by the order dated 12.1.2022 the election petition has been partly allowed. The Election Tribunal has returned findings against the petitioner with respect to issue Nos. 1 to 9 framed therein.
5. Therefore, the only remedy that may be available against the said order is stated to be a civil revision. In that regard reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Athar Hussain Vs. Razda Begum and others, 2017(1) 35 RD 128 and another learned Single Judge decision in the case of Kalektar Vs. Anil Kumar and Others, Misc. Single No. 2187 of 2018 decided on 16.2.2018. Thus, it has been submitted that the Division Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Mustafa (Supra) has been distinguished on facts. Same distinction applies in the present case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, there is no quarrel between the parties that if a final adjudication has taken place in an election petition and order of recount has been passed therein, the remedy available to the person aggrieved may be to file a civil revision. If however, no final order has been passed and the election petition is thus pending, an order of recount passed during such pendency may remain an interlocutory order which may be subjected to challenge in a writ jurisdiction.
7. That being the undisputed principle to be applied, we may examine the contents of the order dated 12.1.2022. In that the Tribunal has taken note of nine issues framed by it being:
^^01- D;k ;kph }kjk 30 iz0 iapk;r jkt ,DV fu;ekoyh 1994 dh /kkjk 03¼1½ ds vuqlkj 50 :Œ dh izfrHkwfr /kujkf'k xzke iapk;r ds xzke fuf/k [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k gS\
02- D;k pquko ;kfpdk vkns'k 07 fu;e 11 tkŒnh ls ckf/kr gS\
03- D;k pquko ;kfpdk /kkjk 80¼30½ tkŒnh ls ckf/kr gS\
04- D;k pquko ;kfpdk esa mŒizŒ ljdkj dks i{k eqdnek cuk;k x;k gSA ;fn ugha rks mldk izHkko
05- D;k pquko ;kfpdk iks”k.kh; gS\
06- D;k xzke iapk;r dh erx.kuk fof/kd funsZ'kksa ,oa ikjnf'kZrk ds lkFk ugha dh x;h gS\
07- D;k ;kph ds oS/k erksa dksa voS/k ,oa izfri{kh la[;k 1 ds voS/k erksa dks oS/k djds pquko ifj.kke izHkkfor fd;k x;k gS\
08- D;k ernku esa iMs+a eriRrksa dh dqy la[;k esa vUrj gS ;fn gka rks mldk izHkko\
09- D;k ;kph vU; mile ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^
8. Thereafter the Tribunal has made a brief reference of the proceedings conducted by it and the case set up by the petitioner. Thereafter, it has recorded following findings:
^^mijksDr foospuk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds fof/kd foospu ds mijkUr ckn fcUnq la[;k 1 yxk;r 9 dks fuLrkfjr djrs gq;s esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqprk gw¡ fd ;kfpdk dks Lohdkj dj iqu% erx.kuk ds djk;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA^^
9. Having done that, the Tribunal has then made operative order. Therein it has been observed as under:
^^vr% vkns'k gqvk fd f=Lrjh; iapk;r fuokZpu 2021 ds vUrxZr fodkl
The legal principle established is that the nature of the order and the stage of the election petition determine the maintainability of a petition and the available remedies.
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 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.
Recounting of votes requires a prima facie case supported by cogent evidence; mere differences in vote counts do not justify recounting.
Election petitions must adhere to statutory procedures for recounting; failure to comply invalidates recount orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.