Petitioner challenged a Panchayat election via writ, alleging lack of State Government approval under Section 264-B. Bench held Article 243-O(b) bars writ jurisdiction, excluding remedy of election petition.
Petition dismissed on ground of availability of remedy of election tribunal by way of election petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27563 of 2019 Petitioner :- Madhupati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar,M.D. Singh Shekhar (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyan Prakash Mishra,Kamal Krishna Roy,Paras Nath Rai
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Sri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Sri K.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 and perused the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of mandamus declaring the election as void ab-initio for re-fixing date of polling on 5.9.2019 without holding complete inquiry as contained in order dated 29.7.2019 and further commanding the respondent nos.1 and 3 to restrain the respondent no.5 from discharging function as President, Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi. A further direction is sought to the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to hold re-election of the post of President, Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi in accordance with provisions as contained under Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and relevant rules framed thereunder.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Addl. Advocate General that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution of India.
Meeting the preliminary objection learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate before this Court that the election which has been held and conducted was not with the prior approval of the State Government required under Section 264-B of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961, a provision mandatory in nature and noncompliance of which make entire exercise null and void and hence the present writ petition is maintainable.
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the provisions of Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution of India, we find merit in the preliminary objection. The relevant provision of the Constitution in our considered opinion clearly bars the courts exercising any jurisdiction to question the election except by way of election petition. We are of the further opinion that all such grounds that have been raised in this
petition can be raised in election petition as well.
In view of the same, the petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of remedy of election tribunal by way of election petition.
This petition is dismissed on the above ground alone.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Gaurav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a panchayat election is maintainable despite alleged procedural violations like lack of State Government approval.
Whether Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution bars judicial intervention in election disputes, mandating election petitions instead.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Madhupati
State Of U.P.
4 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
