ANAND Vs. UP ZILA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an election for the post of Gram Pradhan of the Village Chandauri Khas, Vikas Khand Rohta, Tahsil and District Meerut, the writ petitioner was declared elected. Challenging the said election, the respondent no, 2, Mahak Singh filed an Election Petition No. 8 of 2005 before the respondent No. 1. By an order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1-Up Ziladhikari, Meerut, the application for recounting of votes filed by the election petitioner, respondent No. 1 has been allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Vivek Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri K.P. Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2, to which a short rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Considering the nature of the order which is being passed and keeping in view that no useful purpose would be served by issuing notices to the other proforma respondents, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. However, in case if the other respondents to whom notices have not been issued are so aggrieved, they shall be at liberty to file an application for modification, variation and/or recall of this order.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the application for recounting of votes filed by the election petitioner, respondent No. 2 was taken up for hearing on 17.4.200O. un the said date the arguments of the election petitioner were concluded in the absence of the counsel for the writ petitioner, and 19.4.2006 was the date fixed for orders, with liberty to the petitioner to file his written submissions. On 18.4.2006 the writ petitioner filed an application praying that because of certain personal difficulties and the death in his family, the counsel for the writ petitioner could riot appear on the date fixed and it was prayed that the case may thus be fixed for 21.4-2006 for hearing. Another application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. had been filed on the said date i.e. 18.4.2006, raising preliminary objections.