Disposed

Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2024WRIC/5488/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an order rejecting an election petition on maintainability grounds due to lack of cause of action regarding ballot box tampering. The court lists parties, extends time, and stays the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.5.2024 stayed; oppose parties granted four weeks' time for counter affidavit; case listed on 29.7.2024.

Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5488 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dubey,Kashi Nath Shukla

¶2

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 4 and Mr. Atul Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, 5, 6 and 7 and Mr. Kashi Nath Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.8.

¶4

Issue notice to opposite parties no.9, 10 and 11 returnable at an early date.

¶5

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.5.2024 passed in Revision No.103/22 instituted by opposite party no.8.

¶6

It has been submitted that proceedings pertain to election of Pradhan of 'gram panchayat' concerned wherein petitioner was declared elected whereafter the opposite party no.8 filed an election petition.

¶7

It is submitted that a perusal of the election petition as well as the affidavit submitted by the opposite party no.8 and his deposition clearly indicated challenge to the elections only on the ground of tampering of the ballet box. The Prescribed Authority framed eight issues with issue no.6 pertaining to maintainability of election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and by means of the judgment dated 17.11.2022 rejected the election petition primarily on the ground that the election petitioner was unable to satisfy the clause pertaining to cause of action, particularly, since although only allegation levelled was pertaining to tampering of ballet boxes but prayer in the election petition pertain to recounting for which no substantive material was produced by the election petitioner.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case allegations of only tampering of ballet boxes has been made, such allegations are required to be seen in terms of the Rule 100 and 104 (c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans and Up Pradhans) Rules, 1994 where in case such allegations are found substantiated, directions have been issued that the counting of votes shall not be proceeded with and only fresh poll is required to take place. It is, therefore, submitted that the allegations levelled in the election petition were materially different from the relief claimed therein but the revisional authority has allowed the revision only on the ground that all the issues were required to be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority separately.

¶9

It is submitted that once parties have gone to evidence after having full knowledge of the issues, the aspect was required to be seen only in terms of Rules 100 & 104 of the Rules of 1994, and, therefore, the revisional authority has erred in interfering with the order of the Prescribed Authority.

¶10

Prima facie submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

¶11

List this case on 29.7.2024 along with service report. Until further orders of this Court, the impugned order dated 21.5.2024 passed in Revision No.103/2022 shall remain stayed.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.6.2024 mks

¶13

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Narayan Sharma and 44 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 Others

Ram Pher and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Abhipray Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sports. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Pratap Misra and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Arjun Mishra and 2 Others vs Kuber Mishra and 3 Others