Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Dayanand – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 16 Others – Respondents
Writ C No.29191 of 2024
Decided on : 18-09-2024
(A) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C - Election petition - The impugned order allowing recounting was set aside as the Prescribed Authority became functus officio after deciding the election petition, violating established legal principles. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the Election Tribunal cannot pass orders for recounting after a final decision has been made in an election petition. (Paras 12-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, elected as Gram Pradhan, challenged the order allowing recounting in two election petitions filed against him, arguing it was passed without jurisdiction and based on conjecture. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found the impugned order unsustainable as it violated the principle that the Election Tribunal cannot issue recount orders after a final decision. (Paras 13-15)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to order recounting after a final decision and the legality of the impugned order. (Paras 4, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Election Tribunal becomes functus officio after deciding an election petition, thus cannot issue subsequent orders for recounting. (Paras 10-12)
Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, directing the Election Tribunal to proceed afresh. (Paras 15, 19)
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Anuruddha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat- Malahpurwa, Block Rudrapur, Tehsil- Rudrapur, District Deoria in the election held on 26.4.2021. Petitioner has secured 166 votes. Respondent no.3 filed one election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which was registered as Election Petition No.2716 of 2021 (Computerised Case No.T202105200302716). Another election petition was filed by respondent no.4 which was registered as Election Petition No.2645 of 2021 (Computerised Case No.T202105200302645). Petitioner filed his written statement in both the election petitions. Issues were framed in both the election petitions. Respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 21.8.2024, allowed the election petition and order for recounting. Hence, this writ petition for following relief:-
3. This Court on 12.9.2024 passed the following order:-
2. Judgement reserved.
3. List/put up this case for delivery of judgment on 18.09.2024.
4. Till the date of delivery of judgment of this Court, effect and operation of the order dated 21.08.2024, passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent no.2, shall remain stayed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 21.8.2024 has been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction coupled with the fact that the impugned order is self-contradictory. He submitted that the election petition has been allowed and recounting is yet to take place, indicating that the election petition and the issues involved, have been pre-judged without there being any material on record. He further submitted that the order for recounting cannot be passed unless there is any evidence which requires recounting. He also submitted that the order for recounting has been passed on conjecture and surmises, as such, the impugned order for recounting cannot be sustained. He submitted that after passing the impugned order, allowing the election petition, respondent no.2/Prescribed Authority became functus officio, as such, the recounting is only a formality as after passing the impugned order, the Prescribed Authority cannot pass any order further. He submitted that order of recounting has been done even without ballet paper having been produced or seen by the Court. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2024 (Parshuram vs. State of U.P. and Others), decided on 23.12.2022; in Writ C No.14461 of 2024 (Smt. Asha Devi vs. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others), decided on 8.7.2024 and the case reported in 2017(135) RD 128, Athar Hussain vs. Smt. Razda Begum and Others in support of his argument.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, the writ petition
The Election Tribunal cannot order recounting after a final decision on an election petition, as it becomes functus officio.
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.
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....
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....
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....
Election petitions must adhere to statutory procedures for recounting; failure to comply invalidates recount orders.
Recounting of votes requires a prima facie case supported by cogent evidence; mere differences in vote counts do not justify recounting.
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
