Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MAINA DEVI versus STATE ELECTION COMM.U.P. THRU' COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Maina Devi v. State Election Comm.U.P. Thru' Commissioner And Others - WRIT - C No. 70487 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 8249 (24 April 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

Court No. 1

1. WP No. 70487 of 2005

Smt. Maina  Devi  vs. State Election Commission and others

2. WP No. 977of 2006

Kaushar Khan  vs. State Election Commission and others

3. WP No. 15647 of 2006

Smt. Kanti  Devi  vs. State of UP and others

4. WP No. 16426 of 2006

Smt. Savitri  Devi  vs. State of UP and others

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J

Hon'ble RK Rastogi, J

1. These four writ petitions are challenging the order passed by the respondents cancelling the elections for Block Pramukh as well as for the members of Block Development Committee and Zila Panchayat after declaration of results. The chart below contains the following details

The post for which the election was held;

The date on which the result was declared; and

The date on which it was cancelled.

Sl. No.

WP No.

Election for the post

Date of declaration

Date of cancellation

1.

70487 of 2005

Member Block Development Committee

26.10.2005

31.10.2005

2.

977 of 2006

Member Zila Panchayat

27.10.2005

6.1.2006

3.

15647 of 2006

Block Pramukh

27.2.2006

8.3.2006

4.

16426 of 2006

Block Pramukh

27.2.2006

17.3.2006

2. We have heard Sri Surya Pratap Yadav, Madhur Prakash, Sri Navin Sinha,  Sri NK Pandey, Sri Sudha Pandey. Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, Senior Advocates for the petitioners and Standing Counsel,  Sri PN Rai, and Sri WH Khan for the respondents.

3. In these four writ petitions the result of the election was declared on the date mentioned in the chart. Subsequently, the Election Commission for one reason or the other has cancelled the election and has ordered for fresh election. Six different division benches of our court in Kanti vs. District Magistrate, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 771; Shyam Shakhi vs. State Election Commission, (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2097; Shambhoo Singh Vs. State Election Commission, (2000) 4 AWC 2777; Sunita Patel vs. State of UP and others, (2006)1UPLBEC 372; WP 67170 of 2005, Smt. Gulabi vs. State Election Commission decided on 10.11.2005 by Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J and Hon'ble Shiv Shanker, J, and WP No. 266 of 2006, Smt. Kamlesh vs. Mukhya Nirvachan Ayukt and others decided on 30.3.2006 by Hon'ble BS Chauhan, J and Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J have held that

When the result of the election has been declared, it cannot be cancelled by the Election Commission; and

The proper way to challenge the election is by means of election petition.

These rulings apply with full force to the facts of the present cases.

4. The counsel for the respondents brought to our notice Rule 28 of UP Zila Panchayat (Election of Pramukhs and UP-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 and submitted that the returning officer shall declare the result forthwith only in the absence of any direction to the contrary issued by the State Election Commission and not otherwise. It is not disputed that Election Commission has not cancelled the elections on the ground that any specific direction of the Election Commission was not followed by the Returning Officer.  In view of this, it is not necessary to go into this issue.  In any case the result has been declared. It concludes the issue of consideration of any direction issued by the State Election Commission.

5. In view of these discussions, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders cancelling the elections are quashed. It would be open to the aggrieved persons to challenge the elections by means of election petitions in accordance with law.  Let  copies of this order be placed in the record of WP Nos. 977 of 2006, 15647 of 2006 and 16426 of 2006.

Date: 24.4.2006

BBL


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.