Disposed

Smt Manorama Devi v. District Election Officer and 18 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023A227/834/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226/227 sought to expedite disposal of an election petition. The court directed the Additional District Judge to conclude proceedings within one year, restricted adjournments, and penalized excessive adjournments with costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of election petition within one year; restrictions on adjournments with cost penalties.

Smt Manorama Devi Vs District Election Officer and 18 Others — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 834 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt Manorama Devi Respondent :- District Election Officer And 18 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Balram Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ved Prkash Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶5

By means of present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the court of Additional District Judge-I, District Badaun to decide the Election Petition No.-2 of 2021 (Smt. Manorama Devi v. Sunira Devi and others) filed under Rules 4 and 5 of U.P. Zila Panchayat (Settlement of Dispute Relating to Membership) Rules, 1994 regarding Kshettra Panchayat Sadasya Kshetra Sankhya 08 (Bagrain) Block - Wajirganj, Tehsil- Bisauli, District - Budaun, expeditiously within stipulated period.

¶6

It is contended that respondent Nos.- 2 to 16 have not appeared and ex parte proceedings have been initiated against them. It is further contended that proceedings are being unnecessarily delayed for unjustifiable reasons and on the principle of justice delayed is justice denied, rights and claims of petitioner are getting prejudiced.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the only prayer in the petition being for expeditious disposal of election petition, the same can be directed to be decided provided the petitioner does not press any miscellaneous application pending therein.

¶8

In view of above, this petition stands disposed of with following directions:

¶9

a). Proceedings of aforesaid case as sought to be expedited, shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order provided, of course, no miscellaneous application is pressed by the petitioner which may delay the disposal of election petition, as directed herein above provided:

¶10

i). the proceedings have not been stayed by any competent court of law.

¶11

b). No adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner/applicant ordinarily and in case if third and above adjournment sought to be taken, is allowed, each such adjournment shall be visited with the cost of Rs. 2,000/-, however, not more than six adjournments shall be granted;

¶12

c). Respondent-objector to the aforesaid case shall not ordinarily be permitted to seek adjournment and in case, if third and above adjournment sought to be taken, is allowed, each such adjournment shall be visited with the cost of Rs. 2,000/-, however, not more than six adjournments shall be granted;

¶13

d). The procedure prescribed for conducting such proceedings shall be religiously complied with;

¶14

e). Priority for hearing shall be fixed in the order in which other pending proceeding, if any, has been expedited by this Court in the past;

¶15

f). Repeated strikes called by lawyers and or strike by lawyers in continuity will not deter the authority concerned in complying with the directions of this Court; and

¶16

g). The authority concerned/court below are directed to comply the aforesaid directions in letter and spirit.

¶17

It is clarified that in the event, this order could not be carried out within the time frame fixed for any technical reason, then for such delay in disposal of the aforesaid case, and pendency thereof itself shall ordinarily not be a ground sufficient enough to fasten the authority concerned with personal liability of contempt.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.1.2023 Atmesh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Manorama Devi v. District Election Officer and 18 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manorama Devi v. District Election Officer and 18 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Babu Singh Vs Rajiv Kharbanda and Another

Shri Naresh Chandra Vs Shri Om Prakash (Died) 7 Others

Shri Anand Gopal and Another Vs Shri Mahendra Singh

Nirmala Devi Vs Chamela Devi and Another

Mohammad Anis Khan Vs Shri Devi Prasad Pandey and 7 Others

Mahipal Vs Mantu Singh and 5 Others