DINESH KUMAR Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Kuldeep Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Surya Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 8/6/2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mirzapur in Case No. 7424 of 2021, Surta Nath @ Surat Nath v. Dinesh Kumar and others, under Sec. 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, whereby an application of the petitioner dtd. 27/4/2022 seeking cross-examination of the witnesses, has been rejected in view of Rule 4 Proviso (ii) and (iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as '1994 Rules).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2904 of 2004 (Arunesh v. Prescribed Authority/S.D.O., Gonda) to contend that while recording the evidence as per Rule 4 of 1994 Rules, opportunity of cross-examination is required to be given.