MANISH KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since no factual controversy is involved, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for any counter affidavit.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan. The respondent, being aggrieved, filed an election petition under Section 12(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The election petition was rejected and the respondent, being aggrieved, filed a revision under Section 12(C)(6) of the said Act. The revisional authority allowed the revision by the impugned order and remitted the matter again to the prescribed authority to decide the matter in the light of the observation made by the revisional authority. While remitting the matter, the revisional authority directed that till the disposal of the election petition before the prescribed authority, the petitioner would remain under suspension. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this part of the order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Having heard Sri Sashi Nandan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court is of the opinion that the revisional authority has transgressed its jurisdiction in issuing such a direction. The revisional authority, at best, could have allowed the revision and set aside the election of the petitioner but while remitting the matter had no authority to pass an interim order in the fashion, in which it has been done.