Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Notice on behalf of private respondent no.1 was sought to be served upon Sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey, who appeared in the writ petition on his behalf, but he has refused to accept the notice. Under the Rules of the Court, notice cannot be refused to be accepted by the counsel, who appeared in the writ petition when special appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus there is sufficient service of notice.
Notice on behalf of respondents 2,3 and 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
On objection being raised by the counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the special appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the writ petition, itself was not maintainable against the order passed by the Election Tribunal under section 12-(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947, as against the said order, statutory revision lies under section 12-(c)(6) of the aforesaid Act, a plea, which was specifically taken by the counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge but the same was not taken into consideration and the writ petition was allowed, the said order passed by the learned learned Single Judge, will be deemed to have been passed in exercise of his original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, the instant special appeal, is maintainable.
Considering the aforesaid plea, we stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7939(MS) of 2011.
This apart, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.1 has also filed revision against the order passed by the Election Tribunal, which is still pending.
The interim order passed herein would not effect the proceedings of the revision and it would be expected that the revision be decided by the concerned revisional court expeditiously.
Order Date :- 5.1.2012 vks