Sunday, February 5, 2023
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
spot_img

Order has been passed only to satisfy the plaintiff is not permissible in law: Allahabad High Court

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghankata, Sant Kabir Nagar without giving cogent findings and only to satisfy the plaintiff/ respondents and District Election Officer which is not permissible in the law.

A Single Bench of Justice Prakash Padia heard the petition filed by Anil Kumar.

The petitioner has preferred the writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Sub Division Magistrate, Ghankata, Sant Kabir Nagar.

The Court noted that, it appears from perusal of the record that election petition was filed by one Rajan Pandey/respondent No 1 in the writ petition under Section 12(C) of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghankata, Sant Kabir Nagar.

In the election petition, the order impugned has been passed on 18.11.2022 for recounting of votes on 30.11.2022. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.

Also Read: The Allahabad High Court grants bail to the rape accused due to lack of medical evidence

On the basis of the same, it is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed only to satisfy the complainant and the orders cannot be passed on the aforesaid grounds.

Apart from the same, from perusal of the order impugned that it is clear that the order impugned has been passed without framing any issue whatsoever and without recording any independent finding.

On the other hand, Udai Chandani, counsel for respondent No1 relied upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of the Court dated 13.04.2022. On the basis of the same, it is argued by Udai Chandani that in place of challenging the aforesaid order before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner should file revision as provided under sub Section 6 of Section 12 of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

The Court further noted that,

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgement of the coordinate Bench of the Court passed in the case of Dori Lal Vs State of U.P and others reported in 2017 (2) AWC 1914.

Also Read: Bombay High Court disposes PIL filed to enforce old order regarding vehicle parking

In the aforesaid judgement, a decision has been taken by the Single Judge in the light of the judgement of the Division Bench passed in the case of Mohd Mustafa Vs Up Ziladhikari, Phoolpur Azamgarh 2007 (6) AWC 5536 that the revision will lie only against the final order.

“I have gone through the judgement passed in Smt Maneeta Devi (supra) and from perusal of the same, it is clear that in that case, order was passed by the authorities in the election petition after framing of issues while in the present case, issues were not framed and directly the order impugned has been passed. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that judgement of Smt Maneeta Devi (supra) does not help the respondents.

From perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the order has been passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghankata, Sant Kabir Nagar without giving cogent findings and only to satisfy the plaintiff/respondents and District Election Officer which is not permissible in the law”, the Court observed.

Also Read: Bail plea of James Michel in AgustaWestland case: Supreme Court ponders over liberty of foreign nationals

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the Court opined that the order dated 30.11.2022 does not stand in the eyes of law, the same is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed.

“Since the Election Petition filed on 13.05.2021 and more than one year has already been lapsed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghankata, Sant Kabir Nagar is directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of copy of the order before him”,

-the Court ordered.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.
spot_img

News Update