Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 18 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 18 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as not pressed on the petitioner's prayer, with liberty to challenge the aforesaid orders before the appropriate forum in case any adverse order is passed by the authority concerned in the election petition filed by Respondent No. 3.

Issue for consideration

Whether the election petition filed against the petitioner (an elected Pradhan) was liable to be entertained notwithstanding alleged non-compliance with the proviso of Rule 3(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 requiring deposit of the treasury challan of Rs.50/- in the personal ledger account of the concerned Gram Panchayat. +1 more

Court's answer

On a perusal of the record the Court found that cogent findings had been recorded by both courts below that the sum of Rs.50/- had already been deposited by Respondent No. 3 while filing the election petition.

Ratio / Principle

The Court endorsed the finding of Respondent No. 2 that the petitioner, an opposite party in the election petition, was trying to linger/prolong its hearing by filing the said application.

Key takeaways

The Court was of the opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition could not be granted.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Prakash Padia, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:107172) in WRIT - C No. 18248 of 2025 (Deepak v. State of U.P. & 18 others), order dated 8.7.2025. The petitioner, an elected Pradhan, faced an election petition (Case No. 2693 of 2021) filed by private respondents under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before Respondent No. 2. His application seeking non-entertainment of that election petition for want of compliance with the proviso of Rule 3(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (treasury challan of Rs.50/- not deposited in the personal ledger account of the concerned Gram Panchayat) was rejected on 13.06.2022, and Civil Revision No. 42 of 2022 against that rejection was likewise rejected on 22.05.2025 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mirzapur. Perusing the record, the Court found the concurrent conclusions of both courts below cogent — the amount stood already deposited by Respondent No. 3 while filing the election petition, and the petitioner was attempting to linger the hearing — held that the relief sought could not be granted, and, acceding to counsel's prayer, dismissed the writ petition as not pressed with liberty to challenge the orders before the appropriate forum in case any adverse order is passed in the election petition.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107172

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18248 of 2025

Petitioner :- Deepak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 18 Others

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

The petitioner is an elected Pradhan and his election was challenged by filing Election Petition by the private-respondents under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 being Case No. 2693 of 2021 before the Respondent No. 2.

In the aforesaid proceedings an application was filed by the petitioner stating therein that election-petition is not liable to be entertained, since the proviso of Rule 3(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 was not complied with because the treasury challan of Rs.50/- was not deposited in the personal ledger account of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 13.06.2022.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Civil Revision No. 42 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner and the same was also rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mirzapur vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2025.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

It is argued that while filing the election petition the Respondent No. 3 has not deposited the sum of Rs.50/- in the personal ledger account of the Gram Panchayat concerned but wholly illegally findings have been recorded by both the court below that the aforesaid amount was duly deposited by the Respondent No. 3 at the time of filing Election Petition.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record.

From perusal of the record, it is clear that cogent findings were recorded by both the Court below that aforesaid amount has

already been deposited by the Respondent No. 3 while filing the election petition. Findings were further recorded by the Respondent No. 2 that the petitioner who is an opposite party in the aforesaid election petition is trying to lingering on the hearing of the aforesaid election petition by filing aforesaid application.

In this view of the matter, the Court is of an opinion that relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted.

At this point of time, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present writ petition as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid orders before appropriate forum in case any adverse order is passed by the authority concerned in the election petition filed by the Respondent No. 3.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed.

Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Swati

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad