The Court directed the election tribunal to decide the pending election petition within six months. It mandates business-like proceedings, prevents unnecessary adjournments, and requires the respondent to cooperate without delaying the summary trial process.
The election tribunal is directed to decide the election petition within six months.
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.
1
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22772 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Reeta Respondent :- The State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
1 2016 (6) ADJ 27
2
inordinate delay or unnecessary prolongation of election petitions. Further in the same judgement after a survey of various provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, including Section 12C(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, it was held:
"8. In exercise of powers for nominating the prescribed authority and regulating the method and procedure for presentation and hearing of election petition State of Uttar Pradesh has framed "Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994." The Rules provide that an application under Section 12-C Rule-3 has to be filed within ninety days from the date the result is declared. Rule-4 provides for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being the competent authority to hear such election disputes. Rule-4 declare that while deciding such election petitions the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall summarily follow the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for trial of suits. Such applications can be dismissed, without giving notice to the opposite parties. It shall not be necessary to record the evidence in full and he may only maintain a memorandum of the evidence produced by the parties before him.
3
with the election petitions in a business like manner. There should not be any uncalled adjournment on the mere asking of the parties. The time frame provided for in the matter of filing of the written statement must be strictly adhered to. For avoiding adjournment,of the election petitions on the ground that the SubDivisional Magistrate is busy with other work or has been assigned other duties, the State Government must issue directions to ensure that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Tribunal fix at least one particular day in a week on which they shall necessarily hear the election petitions. Adjournment of the election petition on the ground that the election officer is busy with other work has to be avoided except in extremely unavoidable circumstances.
Singh v. Mairembam Prithviraj2 propounded:
"20. A voter casts his vote as a responsible citizen to choose the masters for governing the country. That being the trust of the electorate in an elected candidate, when he faces an assail to his election, it should be his sanguine effort to become free from the assail in the election petition and work with attainment and not take shelter seeking adjournments with the elated hope that he can be triumphant in the contest by passage of time. This kind of attitude has to be curbed from all angles because law does not countenance it.”
3 (1994) 4 SCC 247
2 (2015) 16 SCC 149
4
Order Date :- 16.9.2021 Dhananjai
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the election tribunal is directed to decide the pending election petition within a stipulated period to prevent inordinate delay.
Whether all parties to the lis must be duly noticed before the election petition is decided.
Whether the respondent no. 5 must cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments before the election tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anita Devi and others Vs. Prescribed Authority, Panchayat Raj and othersRelied on¶9
Anita Devi and others Vs. Prescribed Authority, Panchayat Raj and others (2016 (6) ADJ 27)
Pukhrem Saratchandra Singh v. Mairembam PrithvirajReferred¶20
Pukhrem Saratchandra Singh v. Mairembam Prithviraj (2015) 16 SCC 149 · Who else cites this
Satya Narain Vs. Dhuja Ram and othersReferred
Satya Narain Vs. Dhuja Ram and others (1994) 4 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Reeta
The State Of U P And 4 Others
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
