RAMA DEVI Vs. MADHURI VERMA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal arises from the order dated 25.9.1997, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2466 (M/S) or 1997. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite parties raised objection to the maintainability of the special appeal as according to him this special appeal is not maintainable under High Court Rules and Orders under Chapter 8, Rule 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that an election of Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha Harha, Distt. Unnao was held on 7.4.1995 in which Smt. Madhuri Verma, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2466 (M/S) of 1977 was declared elected against which the appellant filed an election petition before the Prescribed Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Unnao under Section 12G of the Panchayat Raj Act. During pendency of the election petition the Prescribed Authority passed an order on 18.7.1996 for re-counting against which revision was filed by the petitioner, Smt. Madhuri Verma before the District Judge, Unnao. Subsequently, the result was declared and the present appellant was declared elected. Thereafter Smt. Madhuri Verma filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 16.9.1996 which is still pending. The petitioner, Smt. Madhuri Verma then moved an application in the said election petition before the Prescribed Authority praying therein that the said re-counting was not done properly. After considering the application the Prescribed Authority passed order on 1.1.1997 directing he Election Officer to produce the first election result sheet before him. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Unnao declared the result of re-counting vide order dated 26.8.1997 in which the appellant Smt. Rama Devi has been declared elected, whereafter the opposite party filed writ petition challenging the order dated 26.8.1997 as well as 1.1.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority and also against the order dated 26.7.1997 passed in revision by the Court of district judge maintaining the orders of recounting as well as the order dated 01.01.1997. The learned Single Judge on interim relief application passed order dated 25.9.1997 staying operation of the order dated 26.8.1997 and 26.7.1997 against which present appeal has been filed.

(3.) We have perused the orders dated 26.7.1997 which encompass the entire controversy between the parties regarding various orders passed by the Prescribed Authority in the election petition, the order of re-counting which was challenged on the plea that Smt. Madhuri Verma, opposite party No. 1 had no notice of re-counting etc. as well as the order dated 1.1.1997 by which the Prescribed Authority had directed to summon the result sheet of the earlier election wherein the learned District Judge has clearly appreciated and discussed on merits the orders which were impugned by the opposite parties, the revisional order dated 26.7.1997 by which the Prescribed Authority had passed and directed recounting of the votes for the purposes of deciding controversy raised in the election petition. Admittedly, the controversy raised between the parties does not originate in the High Court and the opposite party No. 1 had challenged the decision of the revisional Court as well as of prescribed authority in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge had passed the interim order dated 25.9.1997 which is being challenged in" this Special Appeal.