Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Sazid - Petitioner
Versus
State of UP And 10 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 2528 OF 2024.
Decided On : 11-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Udayan Nandan.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Imtiaz Husain, Rakesh Kumar Verma, Siddharth Nandan.
The Revising Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by directly declaring the election petitioner as Pradhan without remanding the matter for proper adjudication of issues raised.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C(6) - Election petition - The Revising Authority declared the election of the returned candidate void and the election petitioner as Pradhan, citing non-disclosure of a criminal case and incorrect age disclosure as grounds - The Prescribed Authority dismissed the election petition on a technicality without addressing the merits - The court found both orders unsustainable and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. (Paras 1, 3, 12)
(B) Jurisdiction of Revising Authority - The Revising Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by directly declaring the election petitioner as elected without remanding the matter for proper adjudication of issues raised. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a returned candidate, challenged the Revising Authority's order that set aside his election based on claims of improper acceptance of his nomination papers, including undisclosed criminal charges and incorrect age.
Findings of Court:
Both the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Revising Authority were found to be unsustainable, necessitating a remand for proper issue framing and adjudication.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Revising Authority was correct in declaring the election petitioner as Pradhan without remanding the matter for proper consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revising Authority should have remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for a thorough examination of the issues raised, rather than making a direct declaration.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of with directions for remand.
JUDGMENT
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
The petitioner before this Court is a returned candidate. He is aggrieved by order passed by Revising Authority passed in Civil Revision No. 76 of 2022 filed under Section 12-C(6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1947").
2. An election petition was preferred by respondent no. 2/election petitioner before Prescribed Authority on the ground that the nomination papers of petitioner were wrongly accepted. Various other grounds were raised in the election petition by election petitioner, such as, pendency of a criminal case against the returned candidate which was not disclosed and also taking of loan by returned candidate from one Magma Fincorp Ltd., Bareilly. It was further averred in the election petition that the age was wrongly disclosed.
3. The Prescribed Authority without touching the merits of the election petition on the objection raised by returned candidate that affidavit filed to the election petition was not verified proceeded to dismiss the election petition on 03.09.2022. Aggrieved by the order, the election petitioner filed a Civil Revision No. 76 of 2022 before Additional Sessions and District Judge, Court No. 3, Moradabad which was allowed by order dated 18.01.2024 and the election of returned candidate/petitioner was set aside and election petitioner/respondent no. 2 was declared elected Pradhan. Aggrieved by the order of Revisional Authority, the present writ petition has been preferred.
4. Sri. Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the election petitioner as an elected Pradhan and setting aside the order passed by Prescribed Authority. He admits that defect as pointed out by Prescribed Authority was a curable defect and Revisional Authority to that extent was correct but it should have remanded back the matter to Prescribed Authority and should not have dealt with the election petition itself. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, (2012) 3 SCC 314.
5. Opposing the writ petition, Sri. Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that the returned candidate had wrongly disclosed his age while submitting nomination papers and it was illegally accepted. He further submits that a criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 42 of 2020, under Section 4, 6, 6ka and 9 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, under Section 11gha of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and under Section 66/192 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station- Mohkhed, District-Chhindwada, M.P. is pending consideration against returned candidate. The said fact has not been disclosed in the affidavit filed before Election Commission. According to respondent counsel, the returned candidate had taken a loan from Magma Fincorp Ltd., Bareilly which has also not been disclosed in the form filed for the election. According to him, the Prescribed Authority without touching any of the issues on the technical basis rejected the election petition. He has relied upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Lavdhar Maurya v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (5) ADJ 517. He further contends that the Revisional Authority has the power not only to confirm the order of Prescribed Authority but also to vary and rescind the same. According to him, the power of the Revising Authority is wide enough not only to declare the election of returned candidate as void but also to declare the election petitioner as the winning candidate. According to him, the power under Section 12-C(6) is wide enough and Revising Authority can decide the election matter itself. He has also placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court rendered in case of A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna @ Prajwal R. & others, 2022 AIR (SC) 196.
6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The short point for cons
