SHUK DEV PANDEY Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Up Pradhan of Village boharwalia Kala, Tappa Lehda Pergana Haveli, Tebsil Pharenda, district Maharajganj. The Block Development Officer Pharenda on the 11th of Sept., 1991 gave the officiating charge of the office of the Pradhan to the petitioner as an election petition had been filed by the respondent No. 3 challenging the validity of the election of the Pradhan Raja Ram On 28-9-1990 the election petition had been dismissed. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 filed a Civil Revision No 111 of 1990 before the IVth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. The revision was allowed on 15-5-1991 and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28-9-1990 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction to the Prescribed Authority to take away the charge of the office of Pradhan from the elected Pradhan. Pursuant to the said order of the Additional District Judge, the Block Development Officer, Phrenda gave officiating charge of the office of the Pradhan to the petitioner, who was the Up Pradhan.

(2.) On 19-7-1993 the election petition was allowed. The election of Raja Ram, who had been elected as Pradhan, was set aside the respondent No' 3 was declared as having been duly elected as Pradhan. As a result of the said decision an order was passed on the 20th of July, 1993 directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of the office of Pradhan to the respondent No 3 who had been declared elected as Pradhan by the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for parties. The petitioner was not a party in the election petition and was only holding an officiating charge of the pest of Pradhan The respondent No 3 has been declared to have been duly elected as Pradhan of the village in an election petition filed by him. The petitioner has no right to hold the post of Pradhan and he has no right to challenge the validity of the order passed in the election petition in which the respondent No. 3 has been declared to have been duly elected The petitioner has no locus standi to present this writ petition challenging the order passed in the election petition in which he was not a party and as such the petitioner has failed to make out any case for Interference by this Court in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution.