Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK, J.
Asha Devi – Petitioner
Versus
Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 14461 of 2024
Decided On : 08-07-2024
ELECTION LAW - UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C - The court examined the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 12-C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, particularly the doctrine of functus officio, which prevents a judicial authority from revisiting a matter once it has been finally decided. The court concluded that the Prescribed Authority became functus officio after partially allowing the election petition and could not subsequently declare the respondent as a returned candidate. The court emphasized the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the limitations on revisiting such decisions without explicit legal authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, having been declared elected as Pradhan in the UP Panchayat Election 2021, faced an election petition filed by the respondent challenging the election results. The Prescribed Authority partially allowed the petition and ordered a recount of votes. Subsequently, the Prescribed Authority issued a second order declaring the respondent as the returned candidate after the recount, which the petitioner challenged in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Prescribed Authority had become functus officio after the initial order allowing the election petition in part and could not issue a subsequent order declaring the respondent as the returned candidate. The court emphasized that the authority had no jurisdiction to revisit the matter once it had been finally decided.
Issues: Whether the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to issue a second order after having partially allowed the election petition and whether the doctrine of functus officio applied in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a judicial or quasi-judicial authority has rendered a final decision, it cannot revisit that decision unless there is a specific legal provision allowing for such action. The doctrine of functus officio applies to ensure finality in judicial proceedings, preventing endless revisitation of decisions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order dated 21.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority, ruling it as illegal and unwarranted, and directed that the matter be resolved in accordance with the pending revision before the revisional court.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents and perused the record on board.
2. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 21.3.2024 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Aonwla, Bareilly whereby election petition under Section 12-C of UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in brevity, ‘Act, 1947’) moved on behalf of Rajkumari, respondent No. 3, has been allowed and she has been declared returned candidate on the post of Pradhan of the village Guleli, Vikas Khand Ramnagar, Tehsil- Aonwla, District Bareilly, after recounting of ballot papers in pursuance of the order dated 2.3.2024.
3. Facts culled out from the record are that in UP Panchayat Election 2020-2021 held on 15.4.2021, present petitioner has been declared successful to the post of Pradhan. Counting of votes was conducted on 2.5.2021 and, thereafter, result was declared on the same day. In the final result, returned candidate (petitioner) has secured 650 votes and the first runner respondent No. 3 has secured 644 votes. Having been aggrieved with the result of the panchayat election, Smt. Raj Kumari (respondent No. 3) has filed an election petition dated 25.5.2021 with the prayer to cancel the election result on the post of Pradhan of village/Gram Panchayat, Guleli and declare the election-petitioner as a returned candidate after recounting of votes. After exchange of respective pleadings between the parties, learned Prescribed Authority (Election Tribunal) has framed as many as 11 issues and, after due discussion, has allowed the election petition in part, vide its order dated 2.3.2024, with a direction for recounting of ballot papers fixing 9.3.2024 as a date. Having been aggrieved with the order of recounting dated 2.3.2024, the returned candidate (present petitioner) has preferred a revision dated 12.3.2024 which has been ordered to be registered and admitted, vide order dated 22.3.2024 (Annexure No. 10). During pendency of the revision, recounting process was completed. Consequently, the Prescribed Authority has passed fresh order dated 21.3.2024 allowing the election petition and declared the respondent No. 3 as a returned candidate, which is under challenge before this Court.
4. In this backdrop of the facts, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned dated 21.3.2024, has questioned the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority in passing the order dated 21.3.2024 on the ground that while passing the previous order dated 2.3.2024, whereby election petition has been allowed in part, the Prescribed Authority became functus officio, thus, he has inherent lack of jurisdiction to pass subsequent order impugned dated 21.3.2024 whereby the same election petition has been allowed second time and, consequently, respondent No. 3 has been declared as a returned candidate. He has laid emphasis on the final observation made by the Prescribed Authority in its previous order dated 21.3.2024 whereby election petition has been partially allowed. It is next submitted that once the election petition has been partially allowed without fixing any date for further proceeding or action, it amounts to final decision on the election petition and nothing remains to be decided in the said petition. Thus, subsequent order dated 21.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority, who became functus officio, is nullity in the eye of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the follwoing cases:
(i) Parshuram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Matter under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2021), decided on 23.12.2022 by coordinate Bench at Lucknow of this Court, 2022 (0) Supreme (All) 1629
(ii) Manoj Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Writ C No. 33777 of 2022), decided on 29.3.2023 by the coordinate Be
The Election Tribunal cannot simultaneously allow an election petition and order a recount, as it becomes functus officio after deciding the petition.
After finally deciding an election petition by allowing it and directing recount, the prescribed authority becomes functus officio lacking jurisdiction for subsequent orders declaring results based o....
An election tribunal cannot allow a recount after a final decision on an election petition, as it becomes functus officio, violating jurisdictional limits established by precedent.
A recounting order is interlocutory and can be challenged through a writ; adequate statutory remedy exists through revision for final orders only.
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....
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 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
