SMT. MADHU versus THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, U.P. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Smt. Madhu v. The State Election Commission, U.P. Lucknow And Others - WRIT - C No. 13450 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5319 (6 March 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and Sri P.N.Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1. Considering the nature of the order which is being passed, notices to the private respondents are not being issued. In case the said respondents are so aggrieved, they may file an application for recall/modification/variation of this order.

It is the case of the petitioner that in the elections of the Gram Pradhan held in August, 2005 the Respondent no.4 was elected as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in question. The petitioner was also a candidate in the said elections. Challenging the said election, on 13.9.2005, the petitioner filed an election petition under section 12 (C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Respondent no. 9.

The contention of the petitioner is that although five months have passed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has done nothing in the election petition and is not proceeding any further to hear the matter. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election to the office of Gram Pradhan is for a fixed term and in case if the election petition is not decided expeditiously, the entire purpose of filing the same would be frustrated.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the Respondent no. 9, Election Tribunal/Up Zila Adhikari, Bilari, Moradabad shall hear and decide the election petition of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him, and if necessary, proceed to hear the matter on day-to-day basis.

With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 6.3.2006

Ru/w.p. 13450.06

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.