The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application for summoning election witnesses. The Court observed the petitioner had repeatedly delayed proceedings under Section 12(c) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 for over four years without cause.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43396 of 2018 Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabhakar Dubey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Oral
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent no. 4.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the SDM / Prescribed Authority, Bansi, District Siddharthnagar rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuing summons and examining the respondent nos. 3 & 4 to the said application under Section 12(c) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 again for recording their statement.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 25169 of 2018.
This Court quashed the final order dated 20.7.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Election Petition No. 5 of 2015 instituted under Section 12(c) of the Act by the respondent no. 4 whereby the Prescribed Authority had directed recounting of votes.
This Court found that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 20.7.2018 did not contain any reason for recounting of votes. It set aside the order and directed the Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh order in Election Petition No. 5 of 2018 in according with law after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three months.
In pursuance of the order dated 26.7.2018 passed in Writ-C No. 25169 of 2018, the Prescribed Authority again started hearing the matter. The petitioner made an application for summoning forms 4, 6 & 7. The Prescribed Authority rejected such application on 5.12.2018. This order was not challenged by the petitioner as he has challenged the later order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 14.12.2018 by which the Prescribed Authority has noted that respondent nos. 3 & 4 had earlier been summoned, notices were served upon them twice through RPAD and through affixation (Chaspa) at a prominent place on their residence.
The respondent nos. 3 & 4 had failed to appear, notice through publication was also made, therefore there was no necessity to keep the matter pending waiting for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 to appear and to give the statement and since the High Court directed decision of the application under Section 12-C within a period of three months, he can proceed with the matter further directing the case for hearing again on 17.12.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that initial order passed by this Court dated 26.7.2018 clearly shows that it was passed only because the final order dated 20.7.2018 was non speaking and did not mention the reasons for direction for recounting of votes. Earlier all evidence had been taken, but the order finally passed lacked reasons. Therefore this Court had interfered directing the Prescribed Authority to pass a reasoned order.
The petitioner has only been making repeated attempts to delay the decision on the application under Section 12(c) for the past more than four years.
This Court finds that the judgment and order dated 26.12.2018 only refers to the earlier order being setting aside on the ground of it being non
speaking.
Since, liberty was granted to the Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh order which should be reasoned and speaking, the Prescribed Authority should have complied with the judgment and passed a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months as directed by this Court. It is already more than five months from the date of passing of the order. This Court therefore does not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.1.2019 Arif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the Prescribed Authority's order recording statement violations after multiple adjournments.
Whether the petitioner is engaged in delaying the decision under Section 12(c) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 for over four years.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhash Chandra
State Of U.P
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
