SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An election petition was filed by the defeated candidate against the elected candidate. During its pendency, the petitioner (elected candidate) moved an application before the District Magistrate for transfer of the election petition to another authority. This application was rejected, against which, the present writ petition was filed alleging bias against the Presiding Officer. It was contended that the Prescribed Authority has close association with the ruling party and that he was posted at this place earlier when the present Government was functioning at an earlier point of time and immediately after the present Government came into power, the Presiding Officer was given this plump posting in the district from where, the present Chief Minister hails.

(2.) The petitioner in the present writ petition has given a detailed list of instances where the Pradhans elected during the previous regime were systematically removed under the garb of allowing the recounting of the votes in the election petition. The petitioner contended by disclosing before the Court that the Presiding Officer had adopted a systematic approach by allowing an application for recounting on frivolous grounds and without permitting the petitioner sufficient time to challenge that order in a writ petition, the order of recounting took place, and consequently, it becomes a "fait accompli". The petitioner alleged that orders are passed and copies are not supplied and within 24 hours, a date is fixed for recounting and by the time, the petitioner gets the certified copy of the order it becomes too late to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum.

(3.) In the instant case, the petitioner came before this Court for transfer of the petition alleging these grounds of malafides and bias against the Presiding Officer. The Writ Court entertained the petition staying further proceedings by passing an interim order dated 17th January, 2013, but prior to the passing of the said order, the Presiding Officer had already passed an order on 16th January, 2013 for recounting of the ballot papers. The petitioner, through an amendment application has challenged the order of recounting, which was allowed and necessary amendments have been incorporated in the writ petition.