Dismissed

Amar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj and 10 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024WRIC/7547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a revisional order directing recount in a Gram Panchayat Pradhan election. A Supreme Court-supervised recount reconfirmed the petitioner's five-vote margin, rendering the challenge infructuous. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn without deciding merits, with the losing candidate free to pursue remedies against the recount order.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, sealed-cover recount result returned to SDM, remedies kept open for respondent no.8.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat… — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82359

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7547 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Chandra Kant Rai,Ranjeet Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akber Ahmad,Anubhav Yadav,Devendra Kumar Singh,Gaurav Mehrotra,Himanshu Suryavanshi,Km. Madhurima Bhargava,Madhulika Yadav,Raj Kumar Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Vivek Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

1. Rejoinder Affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, the counsel for the respondent no.8.

¶7

3. The present petition was filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Civil Revision No.192 of 2023 contained in Annexure no.1, whereby the revisional authority had directed the recounting of votes. When the order was passed and the petitioner had approached this court, a detailed order was passed on 03.09.2024, which is quoted herein below:

¶8

"1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 4 and 5 and Sri Raj Kumar Pandey for respondent No.8 while Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel has put in appearance for respondent No.s 2, 6 and 7.

¶9

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 23.8.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Court NO.18, Lucknow wherein he has allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.8 and directed recounting of the votes and declare the results of the election held for the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Palhari, Block Chinhat, Tehsil -Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow held on 19.4.2021.

¶10

3. Brief facts of the case are that for the election for the post of Gram Pradhan voting was held on 19.4.2021 and counting of votes was held on 2.5.2021. In the said election the petitioner was declared as returned candidate having secured 497 votes and respondent No.8 securing 492, thus 5 votes were less than the petitioner and consequently the petitioner was declared as a returned candidate.

¶11

4. Respondent No.8 being aggrieved by the election of the petitioner had filed election petition before the prescribed authority raising various grounds with regard to counting of votes. The election petition was dismissed by means of order dated 23.8.2023 where the prescribed authority returned a finding that the election petitioner could not demonstrate any ground for interference in the election petition nor was any ground made out for recounting and, hence, the petition was dismissed.

¶12

5. Against the order of the prescribed authority dated 23.8.2023 revision was filed by respondent No.8 before Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Lucknow which has been decided by the impugned order thereby allowing the revision after recording a finding that with regard to booth no.21 it has been indicated in form

¶13

43 issued by the Returning Officer that total number of votes polled were 613 out of which the candidates had secured 578 votes and 33 votes were declared invalid. It has been submitted that 578 + 33 totals to 611 votes while 613 persons had cast their votes on the said date. It was never the case of the election petitioner that there was any discrepancy in counting of votes in booth No.21 in as much as a perusal of the election petition would indicate that in paragraph 7 only a tally of votes which were case in various booth have been given while in paragraph 11 general allegations with regard to improper counting have been made.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was never the case of the respondent that total number of votes which were cast in both No.21 were not counted or there was discrepancy in the said counting. He submits that rules of pleadings are very strict with regard to election matters and the ground on which the revision has been allowed was never the subject matter of dispute in the election petition and consequently the revisional authority has misdirected itself while allowing the revision. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶15

7. Issue notice to respondent No.s 9 to 11. Steps be taken within ten days.

¶16

8. List on 25.10.2024.

¶17

9. Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned order dated 23.8.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in Civil Revision No.192 of 2023 (Kamlesh Vs. Amar Singh and others) shall remain stayed.

¶18

10. It shall be open for the respondents to file their counter affidavits in the meanwhile. "

¶19

4. Challenging the order dated 03.09.2024, the respondent no.8 herein, approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP No.22560 of 2024. In the said SLP, directions were issued for recounting in terms of the revisional order and further directions were issued to produce the result after recounting before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The result after recounting were produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP was disposed off by means of the order dated 17.10.2024, which is quoted herein below :

¶20

"Upon hearing the counsel, the court made the following Order :

¶21

1. The controversy, in the present case, pertains to the election of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Palhari, Block Chinhat, Tehsil Bakshi ka Talab, District Lucknow. The petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 10 contested the said election. Following the vote count on 02.05.2021, respondent No.7 (Amar Singh) was declared elected by a margin of five votes. As per the result declared by the Returning Officer, the petitioner secured 492 votes whereas respondent No.7 (Amar Singh) got 497 votes. Alleging discrepancies in the vote count, the petitioner filed an Election Petition No.7912/2021. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal dismissed the Election Petition vide order dated 23.08.2023 on the grounds that no sufficient basis existed to warrant interference or to direct the re-count of votes. The aggrieved petitioner filed Civil Revision No.192/2023 before the Additional District Judge, who allowed the same vide order dated 23.08.2024 to the extent that the recounting of votes was directed to be conducted within 15 days on the grounds of discrepancies in the vote counts at Booth No.21 and also for missing or inconsistent votes at Booth No.22.

¶22

2. The above-mentioned order of the Additional District Judge is under challenge at the instance of respondent No.7 (Amar Singh) before the High Court in Writ Petition (C)No.7547/2024. The High Court, vide the impugned interim order dated 03.09.2024, has stayed the revisional order of the Additional District Judge dated 23.08.2024. The next date of hearing before the High Court is 25.10.2024.

¶23

3. The aggrieved petitioner approached this Court against the interim stay granted by the High Court.

¶24

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 01.10.2024, this Court was of the view that recount of the votes will resolve the controversy. Consequently, the following directions were issued :

¶25

“3. The Prescribed Authority i.e., the SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is directed to comply with the judgment dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Revision No.192/2023 and conduct the recounting of votes in the presence of parties and their counsel. The proceedings of the recounting shall be video-graphed. The result of recounting shall be duly signed by the parties and their counsel. However, result of the recounting shall not be declared and the same shall be produced before this Court in a sealed cover on the date fixed.

¶26

4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is directed to remain present personally along with the election records.”

¶27

5. In compliance with the order dated 01.10.2024, the SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is present in Court. He has also submitted a report in sealed cover based upon recounting of the votes. We have perused the said report. As per the fresh recount, two votes of the petitioner and respondent No.7 each have been found to be invalid and consequently respondent No.7 has again been declared elected with the margin of five votes.

¶28

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the invalid votes have been counted in favour of respondent No.7 whereas validly polled votes in favour of the petitioner have erroneously been rejected. Somewhat similar contention has been raised on behalf of respondent No.7 also.

¶29

7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since the High Court is already seized of W.P. (C)No.7547/2024, which is now listed for hearing on 25.10.2024, it is not necessary for us to go into the objections and cross-objections being raised by the parties with respect to acceptance or rejection of the votes polled in favour or against them. All these contentions can be raised by them before the High Court.

¶30

8. Consequently, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the parties to raise all their contentions before the High Court. We request the High Court to take into consideration the fresh recount of votes held pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court on 01.10.2024, for an appropriate decision as it may deem fit. Keeping in view the fact that the election was held in 2021 and there is a fixed tenure, we request the High Court to decide the Writ Petition, pending adjudication before it, as early as possible, and preferably within six weeks.

¶31

9. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 4

¶32

10. The Registry is directed to forward the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh to the High Court."

¶33

5. In view of the subsequent development, the counsel for the petitioner Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi states that in terms of the revisional order and also in terms of the Supreme Court order, the result would get unaffected and the petitioner would still continue as winner and thus to that extent, the writ petition has become infructuous. He also states that the office of the prescribed authority and the revisional authority have become functus officio.

¶34

6. In the light of the said, the counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the writ petition any further.

¶35

7. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, the counsel for the respondent no.8 states that before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent no.8 herein, as well as the petitioner herein had raised certain objections with regard to manner/recounting as is reflected in paragraph 6 of the order of the Supreme Court, quoted herein above. He also states that in the light of the said objections, the Supreme Court had relegated the matter to be raised and agitated before this Court, as is clear from the directions given in para 7 and 8 of the said order.

¶36

8. In the light of the said, he argues that the right of respondent no.8 to avail the remedies against the the manner of recounting and the manner in which, the votes were declared invalid and certain votes which ought to have been declared invalid but were not declared invalid and the request to that extent was made by the respondent no.8 was rejected through the order dated 15.10.2024. In the light of the said, he states that the remedy to assail the said order may be kept open.

¶37

9. Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the counsel for the petitioner argues that no jurisdiction can be created by this court.

¶38

10. Without going into any of the contentions, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn for the reasons as argued by the counsel for the petitioner and recorded above.

¶39

11. The respondent no.8 would be at liberty to avail whatever legal remedy are available for assailing the order dated 15.10.2024 in accordance with law.

¶40

12. It is made clear that this court had not dealt with the merits of the arguments raised by both the parties at this stage.

¶41

13. The result, in sealed cover, shall be relegated back to the SDM for it being forwarded to the appropriate authority.

¶42

Order Date :- 10.12.2024

¶43

VNP/-

¶44

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj and 10 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs Addl.District Judge 14 Lucknow and Ors.

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs Learned A.D.J. and S.J/ Special Judge Lucknow and Ors.

Raghunath @ Raghunath Prasad Yadav Vs Civil Judge S.D. Court No. 22 Lucknow and Ors.

Smt. Neelam Chaudhary and Another vs Debts Recovery Tribunal 600/1 University Road Hanuman Setu Temple Lko and 4 Others

Bhavna Sony vs Vivek Rastogi

Prem Chandra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.