ANJU CHAUDHARY Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under S. 74 of U.P. Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 2-2-2002 of Special Judge, Gorakhpur, by which the election petition filed by the appellant was rejected.

(2.) The election for the office of Nagar Pramukh of Gorakhpur Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation) was held on 20-11-2000 in which respondent No. 1 was elected. The appellant filed an election petition under S.61 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No. 1 on several grounds. The respondent No. 1 filed written statement raising various pleas and one of the plea raised was that the election petition had not been properly presented. The Special Judge decided some issues as preliminary issues and issue No. 4 was whether the election petition had been properly presented. This issue was decided against the appellant and the election petition was rejected by the order dated 2-2-2002.

(3.) In para 30 of the written statement, a plea has been taken that the election petition should have been personally presented in the appellant and as the same had been presented by her counsel, it was liable to be rejected. The learned Special Judge relying upon clause 36(2) of U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Presidents and Election Petitions) Order, 1964 held that as the election petition had not been presented by the appellant in person, its presentation was not proper and the election petition was liable to be rejected. Sub-clause (2) of clause 36 of this Order lays down that the election petition shall be presented in person by the petitioner or if there are more than one petitioner, by anyone or more of them. It may be noted here that U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Presidents and the Election Petitions) Order, 1964 has been replaced by U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Presidents and the Election Petitions) Order, 1983, Sub-clause (2) of clause 60 thereof contains a similar provision namely, that an election petition shall be presented in person by the petitioner or if there are more than one petitioner, by anyone or more of them. Therefore, the reference made to clause 36 of the 1964 Order by the learned Special Judge cannot have any substantial bearing.