Dismissed

Shyam Sunder Verma v. State of U.P. through D.M. Sant Kabir Nagar and 14 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019A227/9474/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the dismissal of objections to an election petition filed under the U.P. Municipalities Act. The High Court upheld the District Judge's finding that the election petition was validly presented as the petitioner was present in court with his Advocate on the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Article 227 dismissed; compounding petition of Jagat to challenge election of petitioner upheld.

Shyam Sunder Verma Vs State of U.P. through D.M. Sant Kabir… — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9474 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through D.M. Sant Kabir Nagar And 14 Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Saxena,Parvez Iqbal Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Pande

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The present petition arises out of an Election Petition No.1 of 2017 ( Jagat Vs. Shyam Sunder Verma) filed by respondent no.4, challenging the election of the petitioner under Section 43 (3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act' 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' 1916). The objection taken by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of election petition having not been presented in accordance with the procedure provided under the rules framed under the Act' 1916, has been rejected by the order impugned.

¶6

The objections were that the election petition was not presented personally by the election petitioner as against the provisions of Section 20 (3) of the Act' 1916 and further that proper court fee had not been paid and the election petition did not bear the signature of the election petitioner.

¶7

The District Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar has observed in the order impugned that from a perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that the election petitioner and his counsel both were present at the time of presentation of the election petition. The said fact is further evident from the fact that the affidavit accompanying election petition was sworn on the same date.

¶8

As far as the court fee and the objection re: signature is concerned, the finding returned by the Election Tribunal i.e. the District Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar that the court fee paid is sufficient and the election petition bears the signature of the election petitioner are not disputed in the present petition.

¶9

Only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election petition was not presented by the petitioner personally as it was first presented before the Munsarim and on the report of the Munsarim, the court records that the election petition was presented through the Advocate. The conclusion drawn by the Election Tribunal in the order impugned that the election petition was presented personally by the election petitioner, is thus disputed.

¶10

To deal with the said submission, relevant is to note the order sheet dated 14.12.2017, which reads as under:-

¶11

" आजयहववदयवचचकरवरशशजगरदवरवजररएअधधवकवशशभवररवरवर ( एड .) दवरव दवधखलचकयवगयवजजसदरर म सरररककअखयवककसवथपकशहहआ "

¶12

The english translation of the order dated 14.12.2017 would be that the election petition was presented by the election petitioner

¶13

through his Advocate while he was present in the Court when it was placed with the report of Sadar Munsarim. The report dated 14.12.2017 of the Sadar Munsarim (page no.64 of the paper book) also indicates that the election petition was properly presented with the requisite court fee accompanied with the Vakalatnama of the counsel, who was present in the Court at the time of presentation of election petition i.e. on 14.12.2017.

¶14

The opinion drawn by the Election Tribunal in the order impugned that the election petitioner was present at the time of presentation of the election petition, therefore, cannot be doubted for the mere fact that the election petition was presented before the District Judge i.e. the tribunal alongwith the report of the Munsarim.

¶15

Reference made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgement of Apex Court in G.V. Sreerama Reddy & another Vs. Returning Officer & others reported in AIR 2010 SC 133 is of no benefit to him rather the view taken by the Apex Court further substantiates the case of the respondent. Further the opinion framed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Devendra Yadv Vs. District Election Officers/District Magistrate, Mau reported in 2011 (9) ADJ 219, is not applicable in the instant case, in as much as, therein the order sheet itself indicated that the election petition was presented by the Advocate only and not by the election petitioner through his Advocate. The words "दवरव" and "जररए" as indicated in the order sheet dated 14.12.2017 for admission of the election petition of the instant case, proved that the election petitioner was present before the Tribunal.

¶16

No contrary opinion, thus, can be framed.

¶17

The present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 Himanshu

Shyam Sunder Verma v. State of U.P. through D.M. Sant Kabir Nagar and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Verma v. State of U.P. through D.M. Sant Kabir Nagar and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Radha Chauhan @ Pinki Vs Principal Judge Family Court Hapur and Another

Ram Adhar and 4 Others Vs Dharmawati and 3 Others

Smt.Munni Devi Vs Radhika Devi

Ram Garib Vs Lal Bahadur and Another

Ramakshaibar Vs Kattu and 6 Others

Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Vs Civil Judge and 6 Others