KUNDAN SINGH BISHT Vs. DUNGAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT peti­tion has been filed by the petitioner chal­lenging the order dated 20.02.2010 (annexure no.7 to the writ petition) passed by District Magistrate, Almora in Civil Re­vision No. 6 of 2009. A writ of mandamus has further been prayed for a direction to respondents not to interfere in the peace­ful funtioning of petitioner as 'Gram Pradhan' of Gram Sabha-Dadholi, Post Manila, District Almora.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as alleged in the petition, are that in the year 2008, the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 3 con­tested elections for the post of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Dadholi, Dis­trict Almora. Election was held on 01.09.2008. In the election, the petitioner and respondent no.1 both got equal 99 votes. The Returning Officer, on the ground of equality of votes and in accordance to the Rule 108 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Member, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan), Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) decided the election be­tween the petitioner and respondent no.1 by lot with the written consent of petitioner and respondent no.1 and issued certificate to the petitioner as elected Gram Pradhan for the Gram Panchayat Dadholi, District Almora on 13.09.2008. Since then the petitioner is continuously holding the post of Gram Pradhan. The respondent no.1 filed an election petition under Section 12-C of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand vide Uttaranchal Act no. 8 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Bhikiyasain which was registered as Panchayat Election Case no. 2 of 2008-09. In the election petition, the respond­ent no. 1 came up with the plea that in the said election total 296 votes were cast, out of which 291 votes were found valid and 5 votes were found invalid and out of total valid votes, the respondent no.1 got 100 votes while the petitioner got 99 votes, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 got 57 and 35 votes respectively. The respondent no.1 further alleged that he came to know from the Election Officer that the petitioner and respondent no.1 got equal votes i.e. 99 votes each and by way of lot, the petitioner was declared winning candidate by the Election Officer. It is alleged in the writ petition that the Election Officer also sub­mitted his written statement before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer that on the condition of getting equal votes and with the consent of both the parties, the result of the election was declared by way of lot, as stipulated in the Rules, therefore there is no irregularity in the election. After hear­ing both the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhikiyasain vide order dated 09.02.2009 dismissed the election petition filed by respondent no. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2009, the re­spondent no.1 preferred a revision in the Court of District Judge, Almora which was registered as Civil Revision No. 6 of 2009. The petitioner submitted his objection against the revision. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the Revisional Court without passing any order for recounting, recounted the ballet papers on 20.02.2010, and declared respondent no.1 as the winning candidate and cancelled the election of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Shri Dinesh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dinesh Gahtori and Shri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocates for respondent no.1, Shri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State and pe­rused the entire material available on record.