Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. PUSHPA & ANOTHER versus DISTRICT JUDGE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Pushpa & Another v. District Judge & Others - WRIT - C No. 28820 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13132 (7 August 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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28820 of 2006

Smt. Pushpa & another   Vs.     District Judge, Mainpuri & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

In the election for the post of Gram Pradhan, the respondent no. 3 Smt. Pinki was declared elected. Challenging the said election, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Pushpa filed an election petition, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 27.4.2006 and the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Pushpa was declared elected. Challenging the said order the respondent no. 3 Smt. Pinki filed a revision before the District Judge in which the petitioner no. 1, in whose favour the election petition had been decided, as well as petitioner no. 2 Smt. Siya Rani, had put in appearance. The revisional court, after holding that the other respondents in revision had not contested the election petition before the Prescribed Authority, directed that the revision may be heard without there being any necessity to serve the other respondents who had not filed their reply in the election petition. Challenging the said order dated 12.5.2006, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Pushpa as well as petitioner no. 2 Smt. Siya Rani (who has also put in appearance before the revisional court) have jointly filed this writ petition.

I have heard Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri K.Ajit, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 on whose behalf counter affidavit has also been filed to which, till date no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

The respondent no. 3 has stated that two opposite parties did not appear even before the Prescribed Authority and the remaining parties have now put in appearance through counsel, before the revisional authority.

Today Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the affidavits of three such persons who are opposite parties before the revisional authority, namely, Smt. Asha Devi, Smt. Shiv Dhara and Smt. Pushpa Devi, wife of Ravi Lal stating that they have not filed their Vakalatnamas before the revisional Court.

Be that as it may, the purpose of issuing notice is that a party should know that there is a case pending against him. Since these three persons have already filed their affidavits before this Court, they are well aware that the revision is pending against them.

Interestingly, even in this writ petition, the petitioners have not impleaded anyone except the winning candidate i.e. Smt. Pushpa. If such is the objection taken by the petitioners that the revisional court has not heard the other contesting candidates before proceeding to decide the revision, it is not understood as to how this writ petition itself would be maintainable without the petitioners impleading the other contesting candidates as parties in this writ petition. In such view of the matter it appears that the petitioners are only interested in delaying the decision of the revision by one way or the other. The conduct of the petitioners by filing affidavits on behalf of three persons who are said to be parties before the revisional court and not even parties before this Court, clearly makes this apprehension clear that the filing of this writ petition is mere a delaying tactics. The writ petition itself would thus not be maintainable when the petitioners have knowingly not impleaded all the necessary parties as respondents.

In view of the aforesaid I would not be inclined to interfere with the impugned order on facts as well as the conduct of the petitioners in not approaching this Court after fairly impleading all the necessary parties.

The three persons who have filed their affidavits in Court today may be treated to have been served and as regards the other parties, the revisional court may proceed in accordance with law.

However, while dismissing this writ petition it is directed that the revisional authority will hear and decide the revision, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the revisional authority.  

No costs.

Dt/-7.8.2006

p.s.

               


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.