Dismissed

Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022A227/9112/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 challenging trial and revisional orders that dismissed a complaint of election malpractices via Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the High Court held the attempt to create a criminal case was futile given exhaustive statutory remedies. The petition relating to Panchayat election disputes was dismissed for lack of grounds to interfere.

What did the court decide?

null

Indrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91...........................................................AFR

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9112 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Indrapal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Vijay Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2021 dated 17.08.2022 whereby the order passed by the trial court dated 04.10.2021 was affirmed and the revision was dismissed.

¶7

The facts relevant giving rise to this petition are as below:-

¶8

An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the present petitioner-Indrapal Singh before the Court of Judicial Magistrate with the allegations that in the local elections conducted for the election of Block Pramukh, Ferozabad, the opposite side used forged ballot papers; some of the ballot papers were put with forged signatures of the voters; 7 ballot papers were not found valid because of the tactics adopted by the opposite side; the collusion of the government officials, manning the elections; some of the voters were turned out forcibly for preventing them from voting; some of the persons were allowed to vote, who were actually not the voters; on some of the ballot papers, interpolation were done, so that they may be declared invalid; all this happened in collusion with government officials who are opposite side. In a nut shell, it is alleged that the malpractice of such nature were adopted by

¶9

the opposite party nos. 1 to 10, that tilted the result in favor of his opponent, therefore, a case may be registered against them and be investigated upon.

¶10

On this application, the applicant was heard by the trial court and the application was dismissed. Two of the grounds mentioned by the trial court are that as the applicant had statutory remedy to challenge the election by filing election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, hence, the application is not maintainable. Besides the above, the trial court relied on the Article 243(o)(b)of the Constitution of India which said that election to any panchayat shall not be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by legislature of the State. After referring to the above, the learned trial court took notice of the Rule Nos. 35 to 49 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 wherein provisions have been made to challenge the validity of elections of Block Pramukhs/UpPramukhs. In the revision, the revisional court concurred with the observations of the learned trial court and finding no error in the impugned order dismissed the same on 17.08.2022. The aforesaid orders have been challenged before this Court now with a prayer to quash them.

¶11

The U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 is an enactment, which was enacted for ensuring proper municipal governance in rural areas, decentralization of Governmental functions as well as to co-relate the powers and functions of Gram Sabha under United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 with U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat. As

¶12

far as question relating to lawful election of members of Kshettra Panchayat is concerned, Section 14(2) is as below:-

¶13

"If any question arises as to whether a person has been lawfully chosen a member of a Kshettra Panchayat or has ceased to remain eligible to be such member the question shall be referred in the manner prescribed to the Judge, whose decision shall be final and binding."

¶14

The same Act provides for some provisions under Section 264B(1) and (2) relevant for the subject as below:-

¶15

"(1) The election to the office of an Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha or a member of a Zila Panchayat and Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or a member of Kshettra Panchayat shall be held by secret ballot in the manner provided by rules which shall also provide for resolution of doubts and disputes relating to the election of such Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha, Pramukh and Up-Pramukh.

¶16

(2) The superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of election of the office of an Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha or a member of a Zila Panchayat and of a Pramukh, UpPramukh or a member of a Kshettra Panchayat shall vest in the State Election Commission. "

¶17

In exercise of powers under Section 237 read with Section 264B of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, the rules have been framed relating to matter of election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs which is the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. These rules elaborately provide for conduct of election of Up-Pramukhs in Chapter 3 of the Rules. The Rules of 1994, as aforesaid also provides for elaborate procedures with regard to disputes of election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs in Chapter 4. Rule 35 says that an election petition calling in question the election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs may be presented to the judge at any time within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result under Rule 14 or Rule 29, as the case may be. The petitioner may claim that the election of the winning candidate was void. The judge has been empowered to exercise powers as provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1990 and to grant relief in terms of Rule 43 of the Rules of 1994. In my opinion, the

¶18

provisions of the Act read with Rules of 1994 clearly indicate that the matter of election has been comprehensively dealt with by the legislature in the relevant provisions.

¶19

I perused the papers on record in the light of the submissions of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite raising a complaint to the higher authority of use of malpractices committed at the election in collusion with the government officials (who happen to be respondent nos. 2 to 8 in the present petition) and private persons (who happen to be respondent nos. 9 to 11 in the present petition), no steps were taken at the relevant point of time to stop them; the petitioner secured 49 votes as against 59 votes secured by the elected candidate while 7 were declared invalid because of the malpractices and tactics adopted by the petitioners, hence, a FIR be lodged against them and order of the revisional court as well as the order of the trial court be quashed.

¶20

If an application moved under Section 156(3) is studied, it clearly shows that the applicant is aggrieved by tilting of the result against him because of alleged unfair practice adopted during the elections. The remedy available to the applicantrevisionist is thus filing of election petition. In may view, an attempt has been made to give criminal color, to essentially a civil dispute which could have been remedied by seeking appropriate remedy under the provisions of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 read with the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and UpPramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994.

¶21

The Apex Court has observed in number of cases that the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution casts a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that

¶22

they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. It has been observed by the courts many times that where there is grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice and where grave injustice would be done, then, in such a situation, the Court must interfere in pursuance to the power conferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of powers to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned orders are speaking, reasoned and within the boundaries of the law.

¶24

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶25

Order Date :- 3.11.2022 Vik/-Asha/-

¶26

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.11.10 17:29:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and 10 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

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and Another

Xxx (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Minor (Juvenile ) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rajkumari @ Doli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others