Sonmati vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9573 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11216 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Sonmati
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Prasad Mathur,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ganesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard Sri Vinay Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur the counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. N. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ganesh Kumar the counsel for the respondents.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2023 whereby the interim application filed by the petitioner in the revision filed under section 12-C(8) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1974 has been rejected.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the election of the petitioner was challenged by filing a Election Petition prescribed under section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act at the instance of the respondent no.5.

It is argued that during the pendency of the election petition, an order came to be passed on 27.01.2023 whereby the directions for recounting were issued. The said order dated 27.01.2023 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition being Writ-C No.4417 of 2023 in which the judgment was reserved on 07.02.2023 and delivered on 09.02.2023 whereby the order dated 27.01.2023 was quashed.

It is argued that despite there being an information provided by the petitioner that the judgment has been reserved, the Election Tribunal proceeded to pass the order on 08.02.2023 whereby the election of the petitioner was set aside after recounting in pursuance to the order dated 27.01.2023. The petitioner preferred a revision as prescribed under section 12-C(2)6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Along with the said revision, the petitioner also filed an application for grant of interim relief in terms of the mandate of section 12-C(8) of the Act, the said application was rejected by means of the impugned order mainly on the ground that in the application, in the concluding portion, the petitioner has sought the stay of the order dated 27.01.2023, which order itself has been set aside by the High Court.

The counsel for the petitioner argues that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief was made with two fold prayers, firstly being for the stay of the order dated 08.02.2023, however, on account of inadvertence, the petitioner has also sought the stay of the order dated 27.01.2023.

In the light of the said, he argues that the revisional court ought to have decided the issue with regard to the stay of the order dated 08.02.2023, which has not been done.

On perusal of the application, which is on record at page no.64 of the writ petition, prima facie the same is not happily worded and thus inconsistency the stay application, weighed heavily in the mind of the revisional court while passing the order dated 14.02.2023.

Thus, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said order. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh application in terms of the mandate of section 12-C(8) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which shall be decided by the revisional court with all expedition after hearing the parties preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the application without being influenced by the order dated 14.02.2023. The revisional court shall also endevour to decide the revision itself within a period of six weeks without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

The writ petition stands disposed off with the said observations.

Order Date :- 3.4.2023

VNP/-