Gudiya Devi @ Gudiya Shukla vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 21496 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4871 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Gudiya Devi @ Gudiya Shukla
 
Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Mahsi Bahraich And 13 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record.

Heard.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of the order dated 07.09.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, the Sub Division Magistrate Tehsil- Mahsi District- Bahraich while hearing the election petition filed under Section 12-C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1947") has closed the right of the petitioner to file written statement. It is contended that the petitioner is defendant no. 8 in the said election petition.

Apart from the fact that the order under challenge is of 07.09.2022 and the instant petition has been filed after more than three months on 09.12.2022. Another aspect of the matter is that a co-ordinate bench of this Court while dealing with the Matter Under Article No. 1349 of 2022 Inre; Neeta singh Vs. District Magistrate, Bahraich and Ors has passed an order dated 05.05.2022 whereby it was directed that opposite party no. 3 would give a last opportunity to the contesting respondent to file written statement to the election petition within a period of two months and in case of failure of the contesting respondent to file written statement it shall be open for the prescribed authority to proceed ex-parte and decide the election petition thereafter as expeditiously as possible. The said election petition is the same election petition in which the order impugned has been passed.

The contention of learned counsel for the petition is that he has only been impleaded as defendant no. 8 in the said election petition on 21.06.2022 and as such, the order passed by this Court in the case of Neeta Singh (supra) would not be applicable to him. However, the fact of the matter remains that even if the petitioner was impleaded as defendant no. 8 on 21.06.2022 yet considering the order of this Court in the case of Neeta Singh (supra) written statement was to be filed within two months. After impleadment of the petitioner, the two months lapsed on 20.08.2022 and admittedly by that date no written statement had been filed by the petitioner. Considering this the prescribed authority has pass the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 closing the right of the petitioner to file written statement. As already indicated above, the instant petition has been filed after a period of three months and thus the only impression that the Court can gather is the attempt of the petitioner to delay the proceedings before the prescribed authority more particularly when this Court in the judgment of Neeta Singh (supra) has already required the prescribed authority to decide the election petition expeditiously.

Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Learned Standing counsel and Sri Atul Kumar Dubey, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 3 are present.

Order Date :- 16.12.2022

Pachhere/-