Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rani vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 17 October, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186729
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36275 of 2025
Smt. Rani
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Mehendra Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ten Singh, Vivek Kumar Pal
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Ritesh Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Vivek Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Judge, Varanasi, dated 10.10.2025 refusing to grant interim order on the stay application filed alongwith Election Revision No.146 of 2025 (Rani Vs. District Election Officer and others) filed under Section 12-C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Varanasi dated 8.10.2025 deciding the Election Petition No.29485 of 2021 directing recounting of votes in the election of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bhohar, Kshetra Panchayat Harhua, District Varanasi.
3. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.5 filed an Election Petition No.29485 of 2021 challenging the election of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan. During the pendency of the election petition, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order dated 7.8.2024 directing recount of votes. The said order was challenged before the District Judge concerned in revision under Section 12-C(6) of the Act of 1947. However, on the stay application filed for interim relief in the said revision, no order staying the direction of recount was passed, as such, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.28498 of 2024. The said writ petition was allowed directing the revisional authority to decide the revision against the order of recount within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and till the disposal of the revision, the operation of the order of the prescribed authority under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947 shall remained stayed. The revision against first order of recount was allowed by the order of the Additional District Judge/Special Judge UPSEB, Varanasi dated 14.11.2024 and the matter was remanded to be decided afresh.
4. After remand of the matter, in pursuance of the order of the revisional authority dated 14.11.2024, the petitioner during the pendency of the matter before the prescribed authority moved an application that the election petition itself was not maintainable, as it was not presented by the election petitioner herself. The said application was rejected by the prescribed authority by its order dated 3.7.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in Writ-C No.24465 of 2025. It is further contended that after rejecting the application for dismissal of election petition by order dated 3.7.2025, the prescribed authority proceeded to decide the election petition itself and passed the order dated 8.10.2025 allowing the writ petition and directing recounting of all the votes afresh. The date for recounting was also fixed on 27.10.2025 at 11.00 am. Aggrieved by the said order of the prescribed authority, the petitioner filed revision under Section 12-C(6) of the Act of 1947 alongwith a stay application with the prayer for staying the effect and operation of the order of the prescribed authority dated 8.10.2025. The revisional authority by its order dated 10.10.2025 has issued notices to the election petitioner before deciding the stay application fixing 30.10.2025 as the next date for its disposal.
5. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that as the recounting in pursuance of the order dated 8.10.2025 has already been fixed for 27.10.2025, the order of the revisional authority in fixing 30.10.2025 for disposal of the stay application in revision was unjustified, as it would render the revision itself to be infructuous, if the recounting is held. He has further stressed on the point that the maintainability of the election petition is also sub-judice before this Court, therefore, if the recounting is held then Writ-C No.24665 of 2025 filed challenging the order rejecting the application for dismissal of election petition as not maintainable will also become infructuous.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 has submitted that as the stay application is still pending and not rejected, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional authority has refused to grant any interim order is not correct. The prayer for staying the effect and operation of the order of prescribed authority dated 8.10.2025 in the present writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the pendency of the revision before the revisional authority.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioner under Section 12C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is pending before the Revisional Authority/District Judge. There is also no dispute about the fact that under the impugned order, the revision has been entertained but interim relief has not been granted.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (Supra) has held that if order under appeal/ revision has serious consequences then the operation of the order must be suspended during pendency of appeal/ revision. Paragraph No.4 of the judgment will be relevant for perusal :-
"We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned Counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the F. A.F.O. is allowed, obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand would have to vacate the room and handover the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the" Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked. And it is not seriously disputed that the whole of the building, Hari Bhawan, except one room in dispute is in possession of the Corporation. We accordingly suspend the operation of the order dated 6th August 1982 directing the appellants to handover the possession of the room to the respondents till the disposal of the first appeal against that order pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Manoj Swarup requests that both the earlier and later Appeals should be heard together as early as possible, We order accordingly and request the High Court if it considers proper in its own discretion to hear both the appeals as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid the continuance of the boiling situation. The appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio of law laid down in Mool Chand Yadav (Supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the revision, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the Revisional Court/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) U.P.S.E.B., Varanasi to decide the aforementioned revision under Section 12C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 after affording proper opportunities to the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that till disposal of the aforementioned revision, the operation of the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 shall remain stayed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
October 17, 2025
Anil
