Allahabad High Court
Hawaldar Pandey And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 2 May, 2023
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 2 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hawaldar Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilendra Kumar Goswami,Neeraj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushlendra Yadav,Rohit Tripathi Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel representing the State authorities and Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, learned counsel representing Election Commission of India.
By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners essentially call in question the election of respondent no.8 to the State Legislative Assembly from Shravasti Constituency (290) on the ground that at the time of filing of his nomination he concealed the information regarding his criminal history which is depicted by an First Information Report lodged at Case Crime No.178 of 1994, under Sections 170 and 380 IPC, Police Station Dargah Sharief, District Bahraich.
In para-8 of the writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioners as under:-
"8. That in aforesaid election, the petitioners had casted their votes in favour of the opposite party no.8 by considering him a political leader of clean and spotless image".
Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are electors.
Under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 (1) and Section 101 of the Act either by any candidate or any elector calling in question the election.
The petitioners are electors and hence if they had any grievance in relation to election of respondent no.8 as Member of Legislative Assembly, they could have called his election in question by presenting an election petition before this Court. One of the grounds for declaring the election to be void as enumerated in Section 100 of the said Act is that on the date of election the returned candidate was not qualified or he was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat.
It is also a ground of challenging an election that the result of election has been materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination.
On being pointed out that appropriate remedy to the petitioners was available at the relevant point of time to challenge the election of respondent no.8 under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, learned counsel for petitioners states that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition.
Accordingly, on his prayer, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Renu/-