KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks the quashing of the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2011 of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Etah by which the election petition filed by Israr Ahmad -Respondent No. 2 under Section 19/20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1960 was allowed and the election of the Petitioner as Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Etah was not only set aside but the election Petitioner -Israr Ahmad was declared elected.

(2.) IT transpires from the records of the writ petition that Election Petition No. 6 of 2006 was filed by Israr Ahmad on 4th December, 2006 to challenge the election of the Petitioner as Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad. A written statement was filed by the Petitioner on 12th September, 2007. Subsequently, the Petitioner moved an application on 30th April, 2009 for amendment in the written statement. This application was rejected by the Election Tribunal by the order dated 27th May, 2009. It also transpires from the records that earlier, two writ petitions were filed by the present Petitioner -Kailash Chandra and Israr Ahmad Respondent No. 2 in this petition. Writ Petition No. 24166 of 2010 was filed by Kailash Chandra for quashing the order dated 27th May, 2009 by which the application filed by the Petitioner for amendment in the written statement was rejected, while Writ Petition No. 10849 of 2011 was filed by Israr Ahmad for setting aside the order dated 5th January, 2011 by which the hearing of the election petition was deferred. Both these writ petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 28th February, 2011. Writ Petition No. 24166 of 2010 was dismissed with costs and the Election Tribunal was directed to decide the election petition in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order passed by the Court on day -to -day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties. Writ Petition No. 10849 of 2011 was allowed with the observation that once the interim order was not extended in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 24166 of 2010, the Election Tribunal should have proceeded with the hearing of the election petition.

(3.) SRI Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that copy of the application dated 8th March, 2011 filed by Israr Ahmad in Election Petition No. 6 of 2006 after the decision of the High Court on 28th February, 2011 was not served upon the counsel appearing for Kailash Chandra and Kailash Chandra or his counsel had no idea that the matter will be heard on 9th March, 2011 which was the date fixed for hearing by the Election Tribunal on the application filed by Israr Ahmad on 8th March, 2011. It is his submission that an endorsement was made by the counsel for Kailash Chandra on the application dated 8th March, 2011 that he did not have instructions to argue the petition and another counsel Sri Jauhari had the instructions but without serving the copy of the application on the said counsel, the application was filed on 8th March, 2011 and the Tribunal without notice to Kailash Chandra or his counsel fixed 9th March, 2011 for hearing. On 9th March, 2011, it was by chance that the counsel who had made the endorsement on the application that he had no instructions was present in the Court in some other matter and though he informed the Court that he did not have instructions but yet the Court heard the matter on 9th March, 2011 and fixed 11th March, 2011 for delivery of judgment. He, therefore, submits that it is for this reason that the application was moved on 11th March, 2011 on behalf of Kailash Chandra for deferring the judgment and hearing the matter but this application was rejected in an arbitrary manner and the judgment was pronounced. It is, therefore, his submission that the order has been passed without hearing the Petitioner and deserves to be set aside.