SHAILENDRA SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was elected as Chairman of Town Area Madauda, district Banda on 13th November, 1988. Respondent no. 4 who had contested the election, filed an election petition on 29-11-88 before the Munsif Banda. The petitioner filed a written statement in this election petition and an issue was framed whether the learned Munsif has jurisdiction to try the petition By the order dated 21-10-1989 the learned Munsif held that he had jurisdiction. Against this order a revision was filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge and it was allowed by the respondent no. 2 by his order dated 6-3-91 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). In this order the learned Additional District Judge noted that the provisions of U. P. Municipalities Act have be:en made applicable in respect of election petitions pertaining to Town areas (vide notification dated 9-12-83 published in 1985 LLT 13). It was held that in view of the judgment of this Court in Shiv Narain v D.J.. 1990 ALJ 389, an election petition challenging the election of Chairman of Town Area Committee could only be filed before the District Judge and not to the Munsif. In view of this judgment it was held by the respondent no. 2 in his order dated 6-3-91 that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition. The learned Addl. District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Munsif dated 21-10-89.

(2.) ON 7-3-91, respondent no. 4 filed an .application before the respondent no 2 praying for a direction that the election petition be returned for presentation to the competent court and this application was allowed and the election petition was ordered to be returned to the petitioner. A true copy of the order dated 13-3-91 of the respondent no. 2 directing the return of the election petition is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. ON the same date i e. 13-3-91 the respondent no. 4 filed the election petition before the District Judge Banda. The petitioner filed an objection that the election petition should be dismissed as time barred. However, the learned District Judge by the order dated 17-2-92 allowed an application for condonation of delay giving the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act to the respondent no. 4. A true copy of the impugned order dated 17-2-92 is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition against the said order.

(3.) SECTION 20 (1) of U. P. Municipalities Act which has been applied to election petitions in respect of the Town Areas states that an election petition shall be presented within 30 days after the election result is announced by the Returning Officer.