Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42077 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ravindra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Bans Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Paras Nath Rai
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by second respondent by which the name of respondent no.5 was included in voter list of the village in question; and for a direction to the respondents not to include the name of respondent no.5 in electoral list of village in question and cease the power of respondent no.5 as Village Pradhan of the village in question.
As per record this is admitted situation that the petitioner contested the election of Village Pradhan in which respondent no.5- Shri Pankaj Yadav succeeded. Thereafter, the petitioner made a compliant before second respondent stating that fifth respondent is not residing in the village in question and his name has wrongly been included in the electoral list of village in question.
The record in question reflects that fifth respondent had earlier preferred Writ-C No.25351 of 2019 (Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was disposed of on 5.8.2019 with following observations:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief;
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 3, to decide the claim/representation of the petitioner dated 07.02.2019 and direct him to include the name of the petitioner in list of the voter list in village Tehara, Vidhansabha Shekhpura, District Budaun."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation before the Respondent No. 3/concerned authority in respect of his grievances with a direction to the Respondent No. 3/concerned authority to decide the same within a stipulated period.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhupendra Nath, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation annexing therewith a filled prescribed form before the Respondent No. 3/concerned authority ventilating his grievances within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its annexures and, if any such representation is made, the said authority shall make all endeavour to consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, second respondent has passed the order impugned in favour of fifth respondent, hence this writ petition.
An objection has also been raised by learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Election Commission that admittedly against the election of fifth respondent as Pradhan, election petition has been preferred, which is pending consideration and now the petitioner is also pressing here the relief simultaneously, which is not permissible in law. At no point of time either in this writ petition or in earlier round of litigations, the petitioner had disclosed this factual aspect of the matter.
Once the said objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents, the Court has asked pointed query from learned counsel for the petitioner whether election of Pradhan has been challenged by the petitioner in the election petition, he has responded in affirmative.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that two parallel proceeding cannot be drawn and as such the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Once the Court has proceeded to indicate his mind in negative, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he does not intend to press the present writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Suffice to indicate that the said election petition would be decided on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 SP/