Election petitions must be personally presented by the election petitioner, but compliance with e-filing during pandemic conditions can satisfy procedural requirements.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh and Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dharnidhar Pandey, Shri Kamal Kumar Singh, Shri, Ram Karan, Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by District Judge, Basti in Election Petition No. 1 of 2022 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the election petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that election for the post of member of Zila Panchayat was held on 29.04.2021. Counting was done on 02.05.2021. The petitioner contested the election for member of Zila Panchayat for Ward No. 41 and in the counting held on 02.05.2021, the petitioner was declared elected as member from Ward No.41. Respondent no. 1 also contested the election for Ward No. 41 but was unsuccessful. Respondent no. 1 filed election petition no. 1 of 2021 under Section 27 of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1961”) before the judge as provided under Section 27 of the Act of 1961 on 30.06.2021. After being noticed, the petitioner filed application (Paper No. 73 Ga 2) for rejection of election petition on the ground that the election petition was not presented by the election petitioner/respondent no. 1 personally. The petitioner also filed another application (Paper No. 130 Ga 2) and prayed that the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the election tribunal be reviewed/recalled. From the facts as brought on record in the present writ petition, it is apparent that election petition was filed through virtual mode on 30.06.2021. On 30.06.2021, following order was passed:

4. On 12.07.2021, following order was passed by the District Judge, Basti/Election Tribunal:

“Case called out. Learned counsel for the applicant is present.

Heard and perused the report of Sadar Munsarim. As per report of Sadar Munsarim, this election petition is time barred by 25 days. Application paper no. 7c/2 along with affidavit paper no. 8c/2 has been moved by the applicant u/s 5 Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the election petition.

Register as civil misc. case. Issue notice to O.Ps. Steps be taken within a week. Put up on 26.07.2021 for objection and disposal of application paper no. 7c/2.”

5. On 12.07.2021, Munsarim submitted its report mentioning therein that the petition has been filed with delay of 25 days.

6. Thereafter, several dates were fixed and on 13.07.2022, the Munsarim report was rejected by the District Judge, Basti/Election Tribunal relying upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court. The order dated 13.07.2022, is quoted as under:

7. By order dated 14.12.2023, the District Judge, Basti/Election Tribunal has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner being application No. 73 Ga 2 and 130 Ga 2 for rejecting the election petition, hence, the present petition.

8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition was not presented by the respondent no. 1 personally rather the same was presented through advocate and therefore, the election petition ought to have been rejected by the tribunal in view of the provisions of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 4 of U.P. Zila Panchayat (Settlement of Dispute Relating to Membership) Rules, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as the “the Rules, 1994”).

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the election petition was presented during the Covid-pandemic period and because of the Covid restrictions, the petition could have been filed through e-filing mode. In the present case, the petition has been filed through e-filing mode and at the time when the petition was entertained by the tribunal i.e. on 12.07.2021, the petitioner was present and therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 has not been complied wit