SMT. ARCHANA Vs. SMT. PREMLATA AND 9 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the State respondents No.8, 9 and 10 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Facts:-

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the petitioner contested for election of village Pradhan of village Barahapur, Vikas Khand Deokali, Tehsil Saidpur, District Ghazipur. He was declared elected on 05.12.2015. The election of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing an Election Petition No.9 of 2016 under Sec. 12C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was presented before the Prescribed Authority on 25.01.2016. The respondent No.1 filed a Writ-C No.9755 of 2016 (Smt. Premlata Vs. Smt. Archana and nine others), which was disposed by a Division Bench of this court by order dated 02.03.2016 as under: "The petitioner had contested the recently concluded Gram Panchayat election in which respondent No. 1-Smt. Archana has been declared elected. The petitioner has filed an election petition under Sec. 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for recount of the votes. The sole relief pressed for by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election petition filed by the petitioner may be decided expeditiously. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the election petition filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously. In the judgement rendered on 17 Dec. 2015 in Writ-C No.67587 of 2015 (Manni Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others), this Division Bench directed that the Presiding Judge shall make all endeavours to decide the election petition without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and on priority basis within six months from the date a certified copy of this order was filed by the petitioner. Following the aforesaid judgement of this Bench in Manni Lal, this writ petition is disposed of with the same terms by directing that the election petition filed by the petitioner shall be decided after hearing the parties concerned without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and on priority basis within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioner."

(3.) Although there was a clear direction by the Division Bench as afore-quoted to decide the aforesaid election petition on priority basis within six months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed, yet the disposal of the election petition has been delayed by the petitioner on one pretext or the other. As per averments made in paragraph-8 of the writ petition, the petitioner had filed written statement on 30.08.2016. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner has filed an application on 02.02.2017 for deciding the issue Nos.7 and 9. The said application dated 02.02.2017 filed by the petitioner after about 11 months of the afore-quoted Division Bench order of this court, was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the same day observing that the application has been moved with intent to delay the disposal of the election petition. The petitioner again moved an application on 07.02.2017 under Order 6, Rule 15 , C.P.C. which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 13.02.2017 in which he observed that the application dated 07.02.2017 has been moved by the petitioner after the issues have been framed and evidences have been led and there is a direction of the High Court in Writ-C No.9755 of 2016 (decided on 02.03.2016) to decide the election petition within six months and as such the application of the petitioner is disposed of. The orders dated 02.02.2017 and 13.02.2017 have been challenged in this writ petition. Submissions:-