JUGGILAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 13.11.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 directing for the inspection and recounting of votes and declaring respondent No. 3 as duly elected Pradhan of the village as well as order dated 23.1.1996 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 13.11.1995.

(2.) Facts of the case as set out in the writ petition, in brief are that the petitioner contested the election for the post of Pradhan of village Thailiya, Pargana Phakharpur, Tahsil Mahsi, district Bahraich. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were also candidates for aforesaid post and in the said election. The election was held on 16.4.1995, and votes were counted on 19.4.1995. Petitioner having secured highest number of votes, i.e., 502 votes as against 402 secured by respondent No. 3, he was, therefore, immediately after counting of votes, declared to have been elected as Pradhan of the village. After declaration of the result, oath was also administered to the petitioner and he started functioning as the Pradhan of the village. Respondent No. 3, challenging the validity of the aforesaid election filed election petition before respondent No. 2. In the election petition, general and vague allegations, on the basis of which the said respondent was alleged to have been defeated, were made. On the receipt of the notice from the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the election petition. The respondent No. 2 without framing issues in the case summoned the record including the ballot papers. Thereafter an application dated 19.10.1995 was filed by respondent No. 3 for recounting of votes. Respondent No. 2 on 13.11.1995 directed for recounting of the votes. It has been alleged that neither the copy of the aforesaid application nor of the affidavit filed in support thereof were supplied to the petitioner. The order-sheet does not contain any order to bring the said application on the record. The application, of course, bears an endorsement of "K.O.", which is undated. According to the petitioner, the said application has been inserted in the record on some subsequent date. It has been alleged that on the same date, i.e., on 13.11.1995 votes were counted and ultimately by another order of the same date, the respondent No. 3 was declared to have been elected as Pradhan of the village, as he is alleged to have secured 400 votes as against 340 votes secured by the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.1995 filed a revision before respondent No. 1 on 14.11.1995. The petitioner also applied for grant of interim stay, but his application was rejected by the respondent No. 1 by order dated 15.11.1995. Against the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, petitioner filed Juggt Lal v. District Judge, Bahraich and others, Writ Petition No. 3346 (M/S) of 1995, which was also dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 4.12.1995. The petitioner, thereafter, also approached the Apex Court, but the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner was rejected on 4.1.1996, aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted below :

(3.) After dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court, the revision filed by the petitioner was heard and was ultimately dismissed on 23.1.1996 by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 23.1.1996 and 13.11.1995 mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 2 exceeded his jurisdiction in directing for recounting of votes on the basis of vague and general allegations made in the election petition and the application filed by the respondent No. 3 that too without asking the respondent No. 3 to make out the case for recounting of votes. It has also been asserted that neither the copy of the application dated 19.10.1995 was supplied to the petitioner nor he was afforded an opportunity to file objection against the said application and the said application was allowed wholly arbitrarily. The orders passed by the authorities below are stated to be in violation and contrary to law settled by the Apex Court of the country.