SANGEETA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/UPZILADHIKARI AND 13 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon the conclusion of the election process with regard to the election of a Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pipali Majara Gharwra, Block Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Azamgarh, the results were declared on 13.12.2015 in which Manju-respondent no.2 was declared elected. Three Election Petitions were filed under section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. One by the petitioner-Sangeeta, wife of Rakesh alias Ramesh and was numbered as T-20161602011872 of 2016. The second was filed by Shakuntala Devi-respondent no.3 and was numbered as T-2016180201652 of 2016 and the third Election Petition was filed by respondent no.11-Sangeeta wife of Yashpal which was numbered as T-2016180201257 of 2016. All the three petitions were consolidated on 1.8.2016 as the common relief asked for in all the three Election Petitions was that the election of the candidate who had won namely Smt. Manju be set aside. Upon exchange of pleadings, five issues were framed on 9.8.2016. They were as follows :

(2.) On 13.4.2017, an application was filed in Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 by Smt. Shakuntala-respondent no.3 in which she had prayed for the re-counting of the votes. Even though the three Election Petitions were consolidated and issues common to all the three Election Petitions were framed on 9.8.2016, the petitioner filed an application on 19.4.2017 in Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 (the election petition of Shakuntala Devi) wherein certain prayers were made and it was pleaded that before any order for recounting was passed, it had to be deciphered as to who were the voters who were dead and their names had entered in the voters' list. Further it was prayed that before any recounting was ordered, it had to be seen as to which of the male voters had voted for the female voters. Still further it was prayed that the question regarding double voting had to be looked into before the application for recounting which was filed by Shakuntala Devi was adjudicated upon. Subsequently, the petitioner on 17.5.2017 again filed an application that the decision on the application of the petitioner filed on 19.4.2017 had to precede the adjudication of the application which was filed by Shakuntala for recounting. However, on 2.5.2017, the application of Shakuntala for recounting of the votes was allowed. This order was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No.21502 of 2017 and on 28.5.2018, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 2.5.2017 was quashed and a direction was issued to the Prescribed Authority that it had to decide the application for recounting in accordance with law within two months from the production of the certified copy of the High Court's order dated 28.5.2018. Thereafter it appears that when the order of this Court was placed before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed another application on 12.11.2018 in the Election Petition of Shakuntala Devi being Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 and prayed that the petitioner be allowed to lead evidence and that the decision on her application dated 19.4.2017 and 17.5.2017 had to precede the adjudication on the application for recounting. When this application was rejected by order dated 27.11.2018, the instant writ petition was filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions :