Dismissed

Smt. Shaista v. State Election Commission U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022WRIC/22341/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders passed without notice via writ petition. Court did not interfere with impugned orders but directed Prescribed Authority to decide the underlying election petition expeditiously in accordance with prior directions.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Prescribed Authority to decide Election Petition No. 1008 of 2021 expeditiously.

Smt. Shaista Vs State Election Commission U.P. and 5 Others — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22341 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Shaista

¶4

Respondent :- State Election Commission U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyavrat Tripathi,Ravi Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rama Shanker

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Petitioner has preferred the present petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶7

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01.07.2022 as well as 11.07.2022 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate (respondent no.2 in Case No.1008 of 2021(Computerized Case No.T202109720401008) (Smt. Anita Vs. Smt. Sajida and others), under section 12-C, of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act 1947.

¶8

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to given opportunity for filing of objection to the petitioner."

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders dated 01.07.2022 and 11.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 are absolutely illegal since the same were passed without providing any notice or opportunity to the petitioner.

¶10

On the other hand it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel as well as By Shri Rama Shanker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private-respondents that the proper opportunity was given to the petitioner but in spite of the same, no response was submitted by her, hence the orders have been passed which are absolutely perfect and valid order and does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶11

It is also stated by Shri Ram Shanker, learned counsel for the private-respondents that earlier Writ C No. 20048 of 2021 was filed by the one Smt. Anita, the election petitioner. In the said writ petition, a direction was given by this Court on 17.08.2021 to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same on its own merit, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of the order.

¶12

It is further argued that when the aforesaid order was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed by Smt. Anita being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2543 of 2022 (Smt.

¶13

Anita vs. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Prescribed Authority/S.D.M.) which was finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 07.05.2022. The operative portion of the order dated 07.05.2022 is reads as follows:-

¶14

"In such view of the fact, as the case was adjourned mostly on account of strike of Advocates, therefore, no case for contempt of order of Writ Court is made out.

¶15

Further, in the facts of the present case, the Court directs the opposite party to decide the Case No.1008 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T 202109720401008) (Smt. Anita Vs. Smt. Sazida and others) within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. This Court further commands the opposite party not to adjourn the aforesaid case unnecessarily, and conclude the same even if advocates are on strike.

¶16

The contempt application is disposed off and is consigned to record."

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court, the written instruction received from the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 27.08.2022, the same is taken on record.

¶18

It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that summons were duly served and proper opportunity was granted but inspite of the same, no reply was filed, the order impugned has been passed.

¶19

After going through the instructions, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present petition as not pressed with direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the election petition expeditiously.

¶20

In view of the above, without interfering with the orders dated 01.07.2022 as well as 11.07.2022, the present writ petition is disposed of finally directing the Prescribed Authorities to decide the aforesaid election petition being Election Petition No. 1008 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. T202109720401008), Smt. Anita vs. Smt. Sazida and others strictly in accordance with law and as per the directions given by this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Swati

¶22

Digitally signed by SWATI PATHAK Date: 2022.09.12 10:08:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shaista v. State Election Commission U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shaista v. State Election Commission U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sadhna Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Sub Divisional Officer and 8 Others

Kalideen Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Subhwant Singh Vs Narendra Shanker Pandey D.M. Bhadohi

M/S Gupta Timber Products Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Gupta Timber Products Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others