Court No. - 33
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8734 of 2017 Petitioner :- Priyanka Tripathi Respondent :- Sushila Devi And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Kavita Tomar,Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri J.R.S. Tomar for the respondent no.1; and have perused the record.
The opposite party no.1 had filed an Election Petition No.D2015030500679, under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, in the court of Up-Zila Adhikari/Prescribed Authority, Auraiya. The Prescribed Authority framed as many as five issues and, thereafter, while writing the judgment he just noted the submissions of both sides and, in one paragraph, without dealing with each issue separately, rejected the election petition. Aggrieved by order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 19.01.2017, the opposite party no.1 filed revision in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Auraiya.
The revisional court wrote a detailed judgment and in the concluding portion took the view that since the Prescribed Authority had framed five issues but had not dealt with those issues separately and the conclusion was drawn in just a solitary paragraph without properly dealing with the issues involved, it found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the Prescribed Authority may not have written the judgment properly but he has discussed the entire material on record which suggested that there was proper declaration of result and that the election petitioner's case had no legs to stand. He has submitted that if the revisional court had to remit the matter back on the ground that the issues were not separately dealt with then, in such circumstances, the revisional court should not have made lengthy observations on questions of fact and law which may be prejudicial to the parties, particularly, when the matter was remitted back.
The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is no order in eyes of law and the said order was rightly set aside by the revisional court.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
The order of the Prescribed Authority, which is there on record at page 58 of the paper book, would reflect that although he framed five issues but he chose not to discuss the issues that were framed by him while writing the final judgment. Being a trial court dealing with an election petition, the Prescribed Authority ought to have noticed the rival case taken in the pleadings thereafter he should have culled out the issues and proceeded to deal with them with reference to the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. As that was not done by the Prescribed Authority, the order of the Prescribed Authority cannot be legally sustained and therefore the revisional court was justified in setting aside the order and remitting the matter back to the Prescribed Authority. However, since the revisional court had taken the view that the Prescribed Authority ought to have decided the issues separately, the revisional court while remitting the matter back ought not to have made lengthy observations on merits which may influence the subordinate court while dealing with the matter.
Under the circumstances, without interfering with the remand order, this petition is disposed off by observing that the Prescribed Authority shall decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any observation made in the order of the revisional court. The Prescribed Authority shall complete the exercise expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 AKShukla/-