Court No. - 23
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16077 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sobaran Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is the elected Gram Pradhan. Election Petition No. T-20170149901134 under Section 12-C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was filed by respondent no. 3 in the court of respondent no. 2 i.e. the Sub- Divisional Officer, Mainpuri, District Mainpuri/Prescribed Authority against the petitioner. Through order dated 22.3.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 in election case, opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness of respondent no. 3 was concluded. Subsequently, vide order dated 24.4.2018, the respondent no. 2 directed a re- counting of votes for the election of Gram Pradhan held in the year 2015. The orders dated 22.3.2018 and 24.4.2018 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
A perusal of the order dated 22.3.2018 shows that the aforesaid order was passed by the Prescribed Authority i.e. respondent no. 2 after considering the evidence on record whereby the Prescribed Authority held that the petitioner was unnecessarily delaying the disposal of Election Petition No. T- 20170149901134 and was not availing the opportunity to cross-examine the witness of respondent no. 3. The order dated 22.3.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 is based on evidence on record and there appears to be no illegality in the aforesaid order. In the circumstances, the challenge by the petitioner to the order dated 22.3.2018 is rejected.
However, a perusal of the order dated 24.4.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 shows that through the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 has directed a re-counting of the votes polled relying on the witness of respondent no. 3 and the fact that the said witnesses were not cross-examined by the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 24.4.2018 would show that no findings have been recorded by respondent no. 2 regarding any irregularity in the counting of votes and whether any such irregularity was proved by the witness of respondent no. 3. The aforesaid order dated 24.4.2018 is also a non-speaking order in as much as no reasons have been given in the same for passing the said order. The respondent no. 2 was liable to consider the evidence produced by respondent no. 3 and record a finding regarding irregularity in counting of votes and the reasons which required a re-count of the votes polled during the elections. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 24.4.2018 is legally not sustainable and is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
The Prescribed Authority shall pass fresh orders in Election Petition No. T- 20170149901134 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018/Satyam