Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 138 (ALL)

Omendra Pal Singh v. District Judge, Etah

1992-01-30

M.P.SINGH

body1992
JUDGMENT M.P.Singh 1. The petitioner wis elected as Pradhan on 5-6-1988 of Gaon Sabha Sakatpur, Respondent no, 3 challenged the said election by means of an election petition under section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection in the election petition that the election of the Petitioner as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Samatpur was challenged and as such the same was; not maintainable. The respondent no. 3 realised the mistake that in place of Sakatpur, the word 'Samatpur' has been typed out. He made an application for amendment of the election petition that instead of ward 'Samatpur' it may be corrected as 'Sakatpur'. After hearing the parties the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the amendment application by recording a finding that the letter 'm' has been wrongly typed in place of 'k' in the word 'Sakatpur'. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was accordingly rejected and the amendment has been allowed. 3. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision. It was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 28-10-1988. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the security deposited by the respondent no. 3 was regarding village Samatpur and not for Sakatpur and as such it was not a valid deposit. The election petition under section 12-C of the Act was not maintainable. The settled view of law is that the courts while dealing with the amendment application should be extremely liberal and the same should not be refused on technical grounds. Reference may be made to the cases Mst. Hamidan v V. Addl. District Judge, Allahabad 1983 UPRCC 347 and Lal Ji Singh v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, 1982 (8)ALR 221 SC. 5. In the instant case there is no dispute that the petitioner was elected a Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Sakatpur. There is no Gaon Sabha as Samatpur. The typing mistake, which was there, was on account of the mistake committed either by the counsel or his clerk. Why should the person who filed the election petition be allowed to suffer. The amendment sought neither banged the nature of the case nor it caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 6. Section 12-C of the Act provides the procedure for making the application for questioning the election of the Pradhan. Why should the person who filed the election petition be allowed to suffer. The amendment sought neither banged the nature of the case nor it caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 6. Section 12-C of the Act provides the procedure for making the application for questioning the election of the Pradhan. The procedure is contained in Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act which runs as follows : "24. Form and presentation of application-(1) An application under sub-section (1) of section 12-C of the; Act shall be presented before the Sub-Divsisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the Sabha concerned lies within ninety days after the day on which the result of the election questioned is announced under the provisions of Chapter I-D or I-E as the case may be and shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the respondent is questioned and contain a summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds : Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a treasury challan to show that the amount of Rs. 5 has been deposited in the personal Ledger Account of the Sabha concerned as security. (2) The person whose election is questioned and where the petition claims that the petitioner or any other candidate shall be declared elected in the room and place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to the application (3) Every respondent may give evidence to prove that any person in respect of whom a claim is made that such person be declared elected, should not be declared so elected on the same ground or grounds on which his election could have been questioned if he had been elected." Admittedly there was no Gaon Sabha as Samatpur. The election petition challenging the election of the petitioner was filed before the Sub- Divisional Officer in whose jurisdiction Gaon Sabha Sakatpur was situate. According to the provision contained in Rule 24 no election petition shall be entertained unless it was accompanied by a treasury challan to show that the amount of Rs. 5/- has been deposited in the personal ledger Account of the Gaon Sabha concerned, as security. According to the provision contained in Rule 24 no election petition shall be entertained unless it was accompanied by a treasury challan to show that the amount of Rs. 5/- has been deposited in the personal ledger Account of the Gaon Sabha concerned, as security. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the required fee has not been deposited in the personal Ledger Account of the Gaon Sabha Sakatpur, the election petition was not properly filed and was not accordingly maintainable. 7. In the instant case this Court has only to interpret the provisions of the proviso contained in Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act. This only makes it mandatory on the part of the person, who is challenging the election, to deposit a sam of Rs. 5/-. IN the instant case this provision has been complied with by the respondent no. 3 but by mistake the word 'Samatpur' has been written instead off word 'Sakatpur'. He has parted with the requisite amount of money and has deposited the same in the treasury of the Government. The clerical mistake in writing 'Samatpur' instead of 'Sakatpur' will not invalidate the deposit made by the respondent no 3. There has been substantial compliance on his part. Since there was no Gaon Sabha as 'Samatpur', the amount may have been kept in the suspense account of the Treasury. As s?on as the application for amendment was filed and it was allowed, the said amount could have been credited in the personal Ledger Account of the Gaon Sabha 'Sakatpur'. The intention of the Legislature while framing Rule 24 only was that a sum of Rs. 5/- was to be paid in the Govt. Treasury by the person who was to challenge the election of the elected Pradhan. There has been complete compliance of the said provision The amount so deposited has become available to Gaon Sabha Sakatpur 8. The defeat in mentioning the name of the Gaon Sabha has been cured by means of the amendment. It has not changed the nature of the case It still challenges the election of the petitioner as Pradhan. The case of the petitioner is based only on technicalities. The Supreme Court in the case Bhagwan Swaroop v Mool Chand, AIR 1986 SC 355 . It has not changed the nature of the case It still challenges the election of the petitioner as Pradhan. The case of the petitioner is based only on technicalities. The Supreme Court in the case Bhagwan Swaroop v Mool Chand, AIR 1986 SC 355 . has clearly expressed its view that technicalities should be avoided as far as possible in procedural matters The laws of procedure are devised for advancing justice. It is to facilitate justice and to meet its ends. So the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit and is rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision Ramesh Chandra Tewari v. Vth Addl District Judge, Basti, 1986 Revenue Judgments 106. Since in that case neither the Prescribed Authority nor the revisional court had recorded any finding about the compliance of section 24, the writ petition was allowed and remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh Nothing was finally decided by this Court. This case is of no relevance to the facts of the present case. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that by means of the amendment the nature of the case has been changed He has referred to a decision CC AIR 1977 Alld. 259. in that case only this much was held that by means of the amendment, new cause of action could not be introduced. In the instant case no new cause of action has been introduced. Only for the letter 'm', the letter 'k' has been introduced. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record I am satisfied that the impugned order allowing the amendment does not change the nature of the case. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.