1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Smt Meera Devi vs State Of U P & Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|06 November, 2017
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50858 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Meera Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel.
This writ petition challenges an order dated 11.10.2017 passed by District Judge, Etah, whereby delay was condoned in an Election Revision under Section 12(c)(vi) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (short "the Act") filed by respondent no.2.
The petitioner claims to be an elected Pradhan of village- Dhakpura, Gram Panchayat- Targawa, Pargana- Azam Nagar, Tehsil- Aliganj, District- Etah in 2015. Respondent no.3 filed an election petition against the petitioner under Section 12(c) of the Act, on 21.1.2016. The election petition came to be dismissed on 9.1.2017. Thereafter, a review was filed before the Prescribed Authority, which too came to be dismissed on 24.5.2017. Subsequently, respondent no.3 filed a revision along with delay before the revisional authority, which came to be condoned on 11.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order dated 11.10.2017 on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before delay came to be condoned and the impugned order does not take into consideration the objection filed by him.
The ground for seeking condonation in the revision was that as the order dated 9.1.2017 passed by Election Tribunal was challenged initially by way of a review, as per the advice given by the learned counsel, which eventually came to be dismissed on 24.5.2017, whereinafter the revision was filed on 2.6.2017, the revisional authority considered the said explanation as satisfactory, proceeded to condone the delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the other side.
Sri Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 on the strength of objections dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure-CA1) contends that delay was objected by the petitioner.
Considering the nature of the order impugned and the fact that the petitioner contested the delay, am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, but with a limited modification that instead of cost of Rs.500/-, same shall stand altered/ modified to Rs.2000/- (inclusive of Rs.500/- directed by the court below) payable to the petitioner, which shall be a condition precedent before the Election Revision is heard.
Subject to above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2017 N.S.Rathour
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Pankaj Naqvi
  • Upendra Upadhyay