BHAGWAT PRASAD MISRA Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was elected Pradhan of village Sarai Manik, Pargana Parshadepur, tahsil Salon, district Rae Bareli in the general election held on 28 -4 -1982. His election was challenged by means of an election petition under Section 12 -C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by opposite party No. 2 before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Salon, district Rae Bareli. The Petitioner filed a written statement in which the allegations made by the opposite party No. 2 were denied. The election petition, of which a copy was placed before me by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2, bears 4th June, 1982 as the date on which the petition was said to have been filed. On 11 -] 1 -1983 an application was filed by opposite party No. 2 for recounting of the votes polled at the election. The Petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement in which he raised the plea regarding insufficiency of court fee paid on the election petition. Both these applications were disposed of by the Sub -Divisional Officer on 30 -12 -83. The Petitioner's application containing the proposed amendment was allowed and 4th January, 1984 was fixed as the date for hearing. The application for recounting, which was filed by the opposite party No. 1 was also allowed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on that date by a separate order passed on that application. This order is contained at the foot of Annexure -1, which is reproduced below:

(2.) IT is this order of the Sub -Divisional Officer which has been challenged in the present petition in which the Petitioner has also raised the question of payment of court fee on the election petition. He has, as a consequence thereof, contended that because the court fee paid was insufficient, the Sub -Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the election petition. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the court fee payable on election petition has been indicated in Article 22 of Schedule II of the Court Fee Act, which is reproduced below:

(3.) HE has contended that because the court fee has not been indicated in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the fee prescribed under the Court Fee Act would have to be paid on an election petition filed under Section 12 -C of the Act. It has been held by this Court in Kali Charan v. Sub -Divisional Officer, 1974 ALJ 659 that neither Schedule 11 of the Court Fee Act nor the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act or the Rules framed thereunder expressly authorise levy of court fee on an application filed under Section 12 -C of the Act questioning the election of a person as Pradhan of the Gion Sabha. It has been held that the expression "any other local authority" in Article 22 of Schedule II of the Court fee Act does not include a Gaon Sabha and consequently a court fee of Rs. 1.50 on the application challenging the election of Pradhan was sufficient. I am in respectful agreement with the above decision and I am also of the view that the court fee prescribed under Article 22 of Schedule II of the Court Fee Act was not required to be paid on an election petition filed under Section 12 -G of the Act, It is not disputed that a court fee of Rs. 1.50 has been paid on the application filed under Section 12 -C of the Act. That being so, the court fee paid by opposite party No. 2 on the election petition was sufficient and the Sub -Divisional Officer had full jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the election petition.