RUKHSANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Samarath Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4.

(2.) Considering the heading of impugned order (Antarim Aadesh), whereby order for recounting was passed and election petition was kept for final decision, therefore, it being an interlocutory order, same could be challenged by way of filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, preliminary objection that impugned order ought to have been challenged by way of filing a revision petition is hereby rejected. (See Mohd. Mustafa Vs. Up Ziladhikari, Phoolpur,Azamgarh and Ors, 2007 (6) AWC 5536, wherein the question referred was answered by the Full Bench that "A revision under Sec. 12-C(6) of the Act shall lie only against a final order passed by the Prescribed Authority deciding the election application preferred under Sec. 12-C(1) and not against any interlocutory order or order of recount of votes by the Prescribed Authority.")

(3.) This is the second round of litigation.