Allahabad High Court
Sunita vs Addl. District And Session Judge,Room ... on 30 January, 2023
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 596 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sunita Respondent :- Addl. District And Session Judge,Room No. 3, Gonda And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suman Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Angrej Nath Shukla Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.10.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, passed by the learned revisional court whereby the revision filed by respondent no.3 under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1947') has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the Election Tribunal for being decided afresh.
The case set forth by the petitioner is that she was declared elected as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Chilbila Khattipur, Block Pandri Kripal, Pargana, Tehsil & District Gonda. The respondent no.3 namely Smt. Ramapati, who was one of the candidates for the post of Gram Pradhan filed a petition under Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 against the election of the petitioner on various grounds including the grounds that (a) there was discrepancy in the votes and (b) the petitioner has failed to disclose pendency of criminal cases against her.
The Election Tribunal vide order dated 13.04.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, after considering all the grounds that had been raised by respondent no.3 was of the view that there was no occasion for the petitioner herein to have disclosed the said criminal cases on the ground that the cognizance of the said cases has not been taken by the criminal court and further the petitioner has not been charge sheeted in the said cases.
So far as discrepancy in votes is concerned, the Election Tribunal after discussing the votes obtained by the petitioner and respondent no.3 herein was of the view that there was no discrepancy in votes.
Upon a revision being filed by respondent no.3, the revisional Court vide order impugned dated 28.10.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, was of the view that so far as the criminal cases are concerned as final report has still not been accepted by the competent court of law as such it cannot be said that there was no criminal case against the petitioner and this fact should have been examined by the Election Tribunal more particularly when both the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. So far as the discrepancy in votes was concerned, learned revisional Court has recorded the total votes as per the notification no.709/3839 vis-a-vis the notification which was available on record which clearly indicated the discrepancy in votes which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Election Tribunal.
In this view of the matter, the revision was allowed vide order impugned dated 28.10.2022 and the case was remanded back to the Election Tribunal for being decided afresh.
Being aggrieved, instant petition has been filed.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the affidavit in Form-5, which was required to be filled by the petitioner regarding disclosure of the criminal cases, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-9 to the petition, does not indicate anywhere that the petitioner was required to disclose those cases in which final report had already been submitted and her name had been omitted from the charge sheet and as such the petitioner did not commit any error in law in not disclosing the said two criminal cases.
As regards the alleged discrepancy in votes, it is contended that respondent no.3 had placed reliance on the information which was given by the Election Commission on its official website which itself indicates that the said information was to be authenticated from the documents and as such it cannot be treated to be the gospel truth so as to prevail upon the revisional court for remanding back the matter and as such on both the grounds the revisional court has patently erred in law in remitting back the matter for being decided afresh.
On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3, argue that a perusal of the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Election Tribunal would indicate that the effect of a final report having been submitted before the competent court of law and its acceptance or non-acceptance has not been considered by the Election Tribunal while passing the order dated 13.04.2022 whereby the election petition filed by respondent no.3 had been dismissed.
So far as the discrepancy in votes is concerned, it is submitted that a perusal of the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Election Tribunal would indicate that though the Election Tribunal has recorded the arguments as raised by respondent no.3 and the petitioner herein yet no finding has been given upon the same and these two facts have prevailed upon the revisional authority to remand the matter to the Election Tribunal for deciding afresh.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what emerges is that after the petitioner had been declared elected as Gram Pradhan, an election petition under Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 was filed by respondent no.3 against the petitioner. The election petition was filed on various grounds including the grounds namely (a) that there was discrepancy in the votes and (b) that the petitioner has failed to disclose pendency of criminal cases against her. The Election Tribunal vide order dated 13.04.2022 considered both the said grounds and dismissed the election petition filed by respondent no.3. Being aggrieved, respondent no.3 filed a revision under the provisions of the Act, 1947 and the revisional Court was of the view that both the grounds namely of there being criminal cases against the petitioner herein and the effect of final report having been submitted - whether acceptance thereof is mandatory and in case the same has not been accepted, the effect thereof as well as there being no discussion on the discrepancy in votes has been considered by the Election Tribunal. Both the grounds found favour with the revisional Court and the matter has been remanded back to the Election Tribunal.
When the findings as given by the learned revisional Court are seen vis-a-vis the grounds that were raised by respondent no.3 herein before the Election Tribunal, it emerges that the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Election Tribunal whereby the election petition had been dismissed so far as it pertains to discrepancy in votes simply records the votes that had been obtained by the petitioner and respondent no.3 without giving any finding as to how the discrepancy has been occasioned and as to the effect of the list as available on the official website of the Election Commission vis-a-vis the final list that had been issued by the Election Commission. So far as the criminal cases are concerned, the Election Tribunal has only recorded that a final report has been submitted without indicating the effect of the submission of final report i.e. as to whether submission of final report would obliterate the criminal cases lodged against the petitioner or the effect thereof. Thus, this Court finds that the revisional Court has correctly proceeded to hold that detailed findings are required with respect to both the issues which have not been given by the Election Tribunal. Consequently this Court does not find any error in the order impugned dated 28.10.2022 whereby the matter has been remitted to the Election Tribunal for being decided afresh.
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.1.2023 A. Katiyar