JAIBIR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat and respondent No. 3 filed an election petition under Section 12 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The allegation of the petitioner is that the deposit of Rs. 50/- was not made in accordance with Rule 3 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Settlement of Election Disputes Rules, 1996 because the said amount was deposited not in the account of the Gram Panchayat but in the personal ledger account of Dis trict Gaon Fund. The petitioner's objection was rejected by the impugned order dated 22. 5. 1996 and his revision has also been dismissed by the District Judge on 31. 5. 1996. Hence, this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there is a technical error, hence the election petition should have been dismissed for breach of Rule 3. In this connection, I may mention that I have taken the view in Jai Bhagwan Vth Addl. Distt. Judge (Writ Petition No. 27884 of 1996 decided on 29. 8. 1996 ). That there is dif ference between how this Court functions under the Representation of People Act ac ting as an Election Tribunal and how this Court decides a writ petition under Article 226. When this Court acts itself as an Elec tion Tribunal then, of course, it is bound by all the technicalities of election law. How ever, when this Court exercises its discre tionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court is not bound to interfere merely be cause there is a technical violation of law by the authority concerned. It is settled law that writ jurisdiction is discretionary juris diction and this Court is not bound to inter fere for technical violations of the law.