Brijnath Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 374 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Brijnath Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 May, 2025

Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68418-DB
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12233 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Brijnath Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tarun Agrawal
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashvat Gupta (A/S 0643/2022) holding brief of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. This petition has been filed seeking a writ of quo warranto 'restraining' the respondent No.5 from holding the post of Pramukh of the Kshetra Panchayat, Block Maniyar, District Ballia.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.5 is elected as member of the constituency of the Gram Panchayat, Duraunhda, Revenue Village Dhanauti, District Ballia which fell at the relevant point of time within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat Maniyar from ward No.6 Utter Tolla, Gram Panchayat Maniyar.

4. The respondent No.5 subsequently contested the election of Pramukh and was declared elected as Kshetra Panchayat Pramukh of the Kshetra Panchayat Maniyar. It is stated that the name of the respondent No.5 appeared in two constituency and, therefore, he incurred disqualification under Clause (o) of Section 13 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 1961').

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments of this Court in the case of :-

(i) Sarvesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation No.2025 : AHC : 43878-DB);

(ii) Ompal vs. State of U.P. (judgment dated 21.2.2022 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in (Writ-C No.3214 of 2022); and

(iii) Madan Singh vs. Madhwa Nand Joshi & Anr. (judgment dated 1.3.2000 of this Court inF.A.F.O. No.745 of 1999).

6. Section 13(o) of the Act, 1961 reads as follows:-

"13. Disqualification for membership of Kshettra Panchayat ? A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Kshettra Panchayat, if he:-

--------------------

-------------------

(o) is not registered in the electoral rolls for any territorial constituency of the Kshettra Panchayat."

7. In the instant case, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.5 was a candidate registered in two electoral constituency hence under Section 13-(o), she incurred disqualification for membership of Kshettra Panchayat and thus could not be elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Maniyar.

8. A perusal of the petition and the representation of the petitioner dated 10.2.2025 that has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition reflect that the petitioner has sought to raise an issue with regard to issuance of a wrong caste certificate to the respondent no.5 due to which she was elected as Block Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat, Maniyar. The reliance placed on Section 13(o) of the Act, 1961 by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and is not applicable at all to support the stand of the petitioner. Nothing has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner to evince that the election of the respondent no.5 as Pramukh falls under clause (o) of the Section 13 of the Act, 1961.

9. If at all the petitioner seeks to raise a dispute with regard to any caste certificate having wrongly been issued to the respondent no.5, which would make her ineligible to be a member/Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat, the petitioner can seek remedy under Section 27 of the Act, 1961 which provides for settlement of dispute as to membership or disqualification, or, an election petition under Chapter IV of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994.

10. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also of no assistance to the petitioner. In the case of Sarvesh Kumar (supra), a writ of quo warranto was issued in view of the peculiar facts of that case. The judgment in the case of Ompal (supra) was passed in a writ petition seeking quo qarranto against the private respondent no.10 therein, who was elected Gram Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat, and that petition was dismissed while observing that the petitioner therein has/had remedy to approach the Election Tribunal with a proper election petition. Moreover, in the case of Madan Singh (supra), the matter arose out of an election petition filed by a candidate, Madhwa Nand Joshi, seeking setting aside of the election of Madan Singh and declaring himself as duly elected Adhyaksha. The election petition was allowed and the appeal filed thereagainst came to be allowed. The only "observation" in the judgment of Madan Singh (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that has been noted in paragraph 3 thereof. The argument referred to by the Court in Madan Singh (supra) cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in support of his case. Therefore, the judgment of Madan Singh is not at all applicable to the instant case. Under the circumstances, the present petition seeking a writ of quo warranto deserves to be dismissed.

11. For for reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue such other remedy as he may be advised.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Himanshu/SK