AMBIKA PRASAD DUBEY Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer is that a writ of Mandamus may be issued commanding the respondents 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. Distt. Magistrate Allahabad, B. D. O. Meja, Assistant Returning Officer) not to hold fresh elections of Gaon Sabha Gedurahi, Block and Tehsil Meja, Distt. Allahabad scheduled for 10-8-1988 in view of the order dated 8-8-1988 (Annexure 3) and to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing order dated 8-8-1988 (Annexure 3), cancelling the election of the Gaon Sabha Gedurahi and directing fresh poll in pursuance of the powers under Rule 21-G (3) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules (for short the Rules) framed under Section 110 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (for short the Act).

(2.) THE factual matrix are that the polling for the election of Pradhan etc. of the Gaon Sabha Gedurahi was held on 5-8-1988 and the petitioner and respondent no. 4 were the only two candidates for the office of Pradhan. Counting was held on 6-8-1988, where it was discovered that certain ballot papers were found in excess than the number of ballot papers shown in the account submitted by the Presiding Officer. THE petitioner's counting agent raised an objection about it (Annexure 1) and prayed that counting may be stopped. Another application (Annexure 2) was also filed. On these applications enquiry was made and counting was stopped and on 8-8-1988 by the impugned order (Annaxure 3) in exercise of powers conferred in view of Rule 21-G of the Rules poll was cancelled and a fresh poll was ordered in respect of a number of Gaon Sabhas including one in respect of which present petition has been filed.

(3.) IN the instant case by the impugned order fresh poll was directed. All this has to be done by the District Magistrate as specified under the Roles. Thereafter fresh poll has to be conducted by Matdan Adhyaksh. After fresh poll has been held, all provisions pertaining to secrecy of the ballot papers, opening of ballot boxes and counting of ballot papers have to take place as provided under the Rules. IN the present case we are satisfied that the impugned order has correctly been passed by the District Magistrate, which could not be said to suffer from any error much less apparent the face of the record.