Allahabad High Court
Smt. Hina Kaushar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3248 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Hina Kaushar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi,Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief :
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19/04/2023 issued by the Returning Officer (Adhyaksh) Nagar Palika Parishad, Utraula/ Up Zila Adhikari, Utraula, Balrampur contained as annexure no.1 to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to contest the election on the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Utraula, District - Balrampur."
The contention of Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that nomination of the petitioner for the office of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Utraula, District Balrampur has been rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that she was in service of the State and therefore disqualified under Section 13(D)(f) of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1960 read with Section 43AA of the said Act.
The Contention is that she was a contractual employee under the Scheme, therefore, she was not disqualified. In any case she had submitted her resignation on 14.04.2023 i.e. prior to filing of nomination papers and as she had filed the nomination papers on 17.04.2023, therefore, on the said date she was not working on contractual basis under the State, as such the rejection of nomination paper cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of objector and he says that the election has been notified on 11.04.2023, therefore, any process adopted thereafter including rejection of the nomination papers need not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the provisions contained under Article 243 (Z) (G) of the Constitution of India which has been considered in the case of Anugrah Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P.; (1996) SCC 303, wherein it has been held that any interference with the election process after notification of the election is not justified. Moreover, on merits, he says that in the impugned order doubts have been expressed as to the submission of resignation itself.
Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel also opposes the maintainability of the writ petition.
On a consideration of the facts of the case, the application for impleadment is disposed of with the right of hearing already given. So far as the writ petition is concerned, in view of the law referred hereinabove and the provision contained in Article 243(Z)(G) specially as one of the ground for maintaining an election petition under Section 19 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is improper rejection of nomination papers, therefore, in view of the aforesaid remedy under Section 19 and the bar imposed by Article 243 (Z) (G), we are not inclined to interfere at this stage, but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an election petition at the appropriate stage.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 21.4.2023 S. Kumar