ASHOK Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. By means of the present petition the petitioner has canvassed the validity of the impugned order dated 29-1-2004 passed by respondent No. 1 i. e. Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and sought its quashment.

(2.) THE facts essential for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner who was pitched against respondents 3 to 5 in the election of Gram Pradhan for Gram Panchayat Chitrasenpur Block Sevapuri Tahsil and District Varanasi, was declared successful on 26-6-2000 having secured 844 votes while respondent No. 3 was a close follower having polled 826 votes. In the said election total votes polled were 1829 and out of which 1715 votes were held valid and 114 votes were declared invalid. In the quadrangle fight, other contestants i. e. Jagarnath respondent No. 4 secured 39 votes while Satish respondent No. 5 received 6 votes. Opposite Party No. 3 assailed the election by means of election petition on 11-7-2000 made under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Prescribed Authority/ Sub-Divisional Officer, Varanasi on various grounds delineated in the election petition seeking the relief of recounting. THE Prescribed Authority/election Tribunal recorded the evidence and in ultimate analysis, dismissed the election petition by means of order dated 17-11-2003. Aggrieved by the order of Election Tribunal, a revision was preferred by respondent No. 3 which culminated in being allowed attended with the direction for recounting of votes after summoning the entire original record. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Varanasi.

(3.) IN dealing with the first question, I would first like to have acquaintance with the scope of revisional power under Section 12-C (6) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Section 12-C (6) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act is excerpted below for ready reference: "12-C (6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the prescribed authority upon an application under sub- section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, apply to the District Judge for revision of such order on any one of more of the following grounds, namely - (a) that the prescribed authority has exercised a jurisdiction not invested in it by law; (b) that the prescribed authority has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; (c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. xxxxxxxxxxxx (8) The revising authority mentioned in sub-section (7) shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed, and may confirm, vary or recind the order of the prescribed authority or remand the case to the prescribed authority for re-hearing and pending its decision pass such interim orders as may appear to it to be just and convenient. . . . . "