No Provision Under UP Panchayat Raj Act To Re-Entertain An Election Petition Which Has Already Been Decided: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no provision under the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to re-entertain the election petition which has already been decided or modify the previous order or to pass subsequent fresh order in furtherance of the previous order.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak observed that, "There is no provision under the Act, 1947 authorizing the Prescribed Authority to re-entertain the election petition, which has already been decided, and modify the previous order dated 2.3.2024 passed by him or to pass subsequent fresh order in furtherance of the previous order. The order under challenge, passed by the Prescribed Authority, is patently erroneous and perverse to the provisions of the Act, 1947 and same is liable to be qushed being illegal, unwarranted under the law, cryptic and suffers from infirmity warranting the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The existence of such order beget prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the present petitioner, who is an elected representative in the democratic setup."

The petitioner challenged the order dated March 21, 2024, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Aonwla, Bareilly, which declared Rajkumari (respondent No. 3) as the elected Pradhan of Guleli village after a recount of votes. The petitioner, who had originally been declared the winner in the 2020-2021 UP Panchayat elections, argued that the Prescribed Authority had become functus officio (had exhausted their jurisdiction) after the partial order on March 2, 2024, directing a recount. The petitioner claimed that the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue a subsequent final order.

The petitioner's initial appeal was dismissed, and a revision filed was pending when the recount was completed. The Prescribed Authority then finalized the decision on March 21, 2024, declaring Rajkumari the winner.

The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing it was invalid because the authority had already made a final decision with the partial order. The respondents argued that the recount was an interim step and that the final decision on the election petition was valid after considering the recount results.

The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that after partially allowing the election petition on March 2, 2024, without scheduling further proceedings or intending to make a final decision, the Prescribed Authority became functus officio.

Consequently, it lacked the jurisdiction to re-entertain and allow the same petition a second time, thereby declaring respondent No. 3 as the returned candidate. The Court noted that the Prescribed Authority seemed to have acted hastily in issuing the order dated March 21, 2024, even though a revision petition dated March 12, 2024, was pending before the revisional court to assess the legality and validity of the March 2, 2024 order. The Court stated, "Even assuming that no interim order was passed by the revisional court, the Prescribed Authority has not justified in passing the order dated 21.3.2024 while he had already laid his hands off from the election petition by terminating its proceeding finally vide order dated 2.3.2024."

Cause Title: Smt Asha Devi vs Prescribed Authority / Sub Divisional Magistrate And 8 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:109919)

Click here to read/download the Judgment