SATISH KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BUDAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Satish Kumar, seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Budaun, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, and to dismiss the Election Petition No. 23 of 2001 and other consequential reliefs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: In the District of Budaun, there is a Kshettra Panchayat, Junawai in the Tehsil Gunnaur, wherein there are 50 Nirvachan Kshettra from which one member each is to be elected. The members thereafter elect a Pramukh. Kashipur is one of the Nirvachan Kshettra. Ram Babu Singh, respondent No. 2, has been elected as member of the Kshettra Panchayat, Kashipur. He filed his nomination paper for the post of Pramukh. The petitioner also contested the election for the post of Pramukh. In the elections held on 8th March, 2001, the petitioner got 25 votes whereas the respondent No. 2 got 14 votes. 11 votes were cancelled. The petitioner was declared elected.

(3.) IN paragraph 12 of the election petition, he had given about 12 grounds on which the election of the petitioner was liable to be declared void. The petitioner initially filed an application purporting to be under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint as it did not disclose any cause of action. The said application was dismissed by the Election Tribunal vide order dated 15th May, 2002. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order, had also been dismissed by this Court. Immediately thereafter another application was filed on 22nd July, 2002 purporting to be under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to strike off paragraph 12 and its sub -paragraphs (a) to (k) and paragraphs 13 and 14 of the election petition as they are unnecessary, scandalous and vexatious and the allegations made therein are not definite, precise and specific and also do not disclose the material facts and particulars. The consequential relief of dismissal of the election petition was also sought. The respondent No. 2 filed his objections. The Election Tribunal, by the impugned order, had rejected the said application on the ground that in the election petition malpractices had not been alleged against the petitioner but the process of election has been challenged on the ground that illiterate voters were not provided helpers for exercising their right of vote and further the design on the ballot paper had been changed and no final view can be taken at this stage.