Heard Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Asit Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Bagesh Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gram Laksmanpur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. Respondent no.3 herein challenged the election of the petitioner under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') by means of Election Petition No.2920 of 2015 (Ramesh Kanaujia v. Amar Chandra and others). The prayer made in the said election petition is extracted below: -
"vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gs fd xzke iapk;r o fo0[k0 y{e.kiqj ij lnj rg0 ykyxat tu0 izrkix<+ esa 13&12&15 dks ?kksf"kr ifj.kke dks jksdrs iqu% erx.kuk djk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsaA"
On 10.12.2018, the election petition has been finally disposed of. The operative portion of the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority is extracted below: -
"------------mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa dh cgl dks lqukA okn esas fu/kkZfjr 4 fcUnqvksa ds fuLrkj.k bl izdkj gaSA 1- D;k erx.kuk esa /kkW/kyh gq;h gS\ xzke iapk;r y{e.kiqj] cwFk la[;k v0ij 475 er og c cwFk ij 382 er dqy 857 er iM+s FksA dqy erksa esa 75 er x.kuk ds le; voS/k dj fn;k x;kA ftlesa v cwFk ij ;kph ds er T;knk iM+s gksus ds dkj.k v cwFk ij 72 er voS/k o c cwFk ij ftl ij ;kph ds de er iM+s Fks mlesa ls rhu er voS/k fd;s x;sA tks lekukUrj ugha gSA blls izrhr gksrk gS fd erx.kuk esa /kkW/kyh gq;h gSA mDr okn fcUnq ;kph ds i{k esa tkrk gSA 2- D;k erx.kuk fd;k tkuk vko';d gS ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkFkZ ;g fl) gksrk gS fd ;fn erx.kuk esa 1 ls 8 er rd dh ckr vfu;fefrrk dkfjr dh x;h gS rks izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr U;k;kfpr gksrk gS iqueZrx.kuk gh vk/kkj curk gS blfy, ;g okn fcUnq ;kph ds i{k esa tkrk gSA 3- D;k okn fof/kd izfdz;k ds rgr nkf[ky gSA m0iz0 iapk;r jkt fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 3 esa pquko ;kfpdk nkf[ky djus dh vof/k pquko ?kks"k.kk ds 90 fnu ds vUnj ;kfpdk ;ksftr dh tk ldrh gSA 'krZ ;g gS fd xzke iapk;r ,oa ftykQ.M esa 50:0 dk Vªstjh pkyku tek gks ;kph }kjk pquko ?kks"k.kk ds 7 fnu ds vUnj 50:0 dk Vªstjh pkyku ds lkFk Lo;a U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gksdj ;kfpdk ;ksftr fd;k gS tks vUnj fe;kn gS] rFkk vius nkos ds leFkZu esa izi= 7 o ftykf/kdkjh izrkix<+ iqfyl v/kh{kd izrkix<+ rFkk eq[; fuokZpu vf/kdkjh m0iz0 'kklu dks Hksts x;s QSDl jlhn o vkosnu izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk ;kfpdk fof/kd izfdz;k ds vUrxZr ;ksftr gksus ds dkj.k mDr okn fcUnq dk fuLrkj.k ;kph ds i{k esa tkrk gSA 4- D;k okn iks"k.kh; gS\ iapk;r jkt fu;ekoyh 1947 esa ;g izfn"V gS fd ;kfpdk vUnj fe;kn nkf[ky gS rks lquokbZ djuk U;k; ij[k gS mDr ;kfpdk ;kph }kjk leLr dkuwuh midze ds okn ;ksftr fd;k gS tks xzká gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA okn fcUnq dk fuLrkj.k ;kph ds i{k esa tkrk gSA iqueZrx.kuk U;k;kFkZ vko';d gSA izfroknhx.kksa ds lk{kh us Hkh bl ckr dks Lohdkjk gS ,oa erx.kuk ds le; ;kph ds vfHkdrkZ fo/kjkt }kjk iqueZrx.kuk dk vkosnu fd;k x;k Fkk eSa mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa ds rdksZa ,oa dkxtkrksa dk ifj'khyu fd;k ftlesa eaS bl vfHker ij igqWprk gwW fd er x.kuk esa ikjnf'kZrk ugh uSlfxZd U;k; ds rgr ;fn pquko vf/kdkjh iqueZrx.kuk djk fn;s gksrs rks okn nk;j djus dh vko';drk izrhr u gksrhA mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk iqueZrx.kuk djk;k tkuk U;k;laxr gSA vkns'k vr% xzke iapk;r y{e.kiqj fo0[k0 y{e.kiqj] rglhy ykyxat tuin izrkix<+ ds iz/kku in dh iqueZrx.kuk dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS iqueZrx.kuk fnukad [email protected]@2018 rglhy ykyxat ds U;k;ky; esa lEiUu gks vkns'k dh izfr eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh izrkix<+ dks izHkkjh vf/kdkjh iap LFkkuh; pquko izrkix<+ dks iqueZrx.kuk gsrq okafNr vfHkys[kksa dks miyC/k djkus ,oa ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh izrkix<+ dks iszf"kr fd;k tk;A vkns'k dh izfr [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh y{e.kiqj dks vius lkFk ikap x.kD; ds lkFk mifLFkr jgdj iqueZrx.kuk esa lg;ksx djus ,oa izHkkjh fujh{kd ykyxat dks mDr le; vko';d lqu{kk O;oLFkk djus gsrq izsf"kr gksA"
(emphasis supplied) The order dated 10.12.2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Chaturvedi with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. He has contended that against the order impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 12-C (6) of the Act, and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In response, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohd. Mustafa v. Up Ziladhikari & Ors., (2007) 5 All LJ 437 has submitted that a writ petition against the order of recount is maintainable.
In the case of Mohd. Mustafa (supra), during the pendency of an election petition under Section 12-C of the Act, an order of recount was passed by the Prescribed Authority. Overruling the objection against the maintainability of the writ petition against the order of recount, a Division of this Court held that a revision against an interlocutory order of recount was not maintainable. Relevant portion of the paragraph 8 of the said judgment is extracted below: -
"The said provision makes it clear that a revision can be filed against an order of the Prescribed Authority passed under sub-section (1) of Section 12-C of the Act within thirty days from the date of the order. Sub-section (1) of Section 12-C clearly recites that the election shall not be called in question except by "an" application presented to such authority within such time and in the manner as may be prescribed. The Rules clearly provide for the manner of presentation of an election application. It is the disposal of such an election application which would be an order passed by the Prescribed Authority, as referred to in sub-section (6) and the revision would be maintainable only against such an order. It is well settled by now that a right to challenge election is a statutory right and not a common law right. The statutory provisions, referred to herein above, allow the maintaining of a revision petition only against a final order passed by a Prescribed Authority on an election application presented in the manner prescribed. It is, therefore, clear that a revision would not lie against an interlocutory order passed ordering a recount."
(emphasis supplied) In the case in hand, in the election petition preferred by the respondent no.3 four issues were framed. A perusal of the impugned order would show that all the four issues have been decided, the relief prayed for has been granted and the election petition has been finally disposed of.
From the order under challenge, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that the election petition is still pending. In the entire writ petition there is no averment that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order, or that the election petition preferred by respondent no.3 is still pending. Despite repeated query learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order.
Since by the impugned order, the election petition preferred by the respondent no.3 has been finally disposed of, the case of Mohd. Mustafa (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner.
Against the order under challenge the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 12-C of the Act.
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
At this stage, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certified copy of the order dated 10.12.2018 be returned to him in order to enable him to file a revision.
Certified copy of the order impugned in this petition (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Anupam