Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1110 (ALL)

SHAKUNTALA DEVI v. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RAMPUR

2001-12-01

R.R.YADAV

body2001
R. R. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned senior advocate. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain assisted by Sri Pushkar Mehrotra, appearing on behalf of petitioner. Perused the averments made in the writ petition. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the order passed by election Tribunal dated 5. 1. 2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition as well as revisionat order dated 8. 11. 2001, Annexure-9 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of filing of nomination paper as a backward class candidate for the office of Pradhan, Smt. Harbans Kaur was required to produce a caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to backward class. Since she failed to produce the certificate of backward class, therefore, Returning Officer has rightly rejected her nomination paper and once nomination paper of Smt. Harbans Kaur was rejected due to non-filing of backward class certificate in support of her claim that she belongs to backward class, the same cannot be questioned under Section 12c of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act on the ground that her nomination paper was wrongly rejected. ( 3 ) SUFFICE it to say in this regard that the Tribunal has to investigate as to whether the nomination paper of Smt. Harbans Kaur was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer and on evidence adduced by both the parties, the Election Tribunal has committed no error in holding that the nomination paper of Smt. Harbans Kaur was wrongly rejected. The revislonal court also after analytical discussion of materials available on record with reference to relevant law on the subject has committed no error in affirming the order passed by Election Tribunal. ( 4 ) IT is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no averment in the election petition that wrong rejection of nomination paper of Smt. Harbans Kaur has materially affected the result of the election, therefore, on this ground, the Election Tribunal as well as revisional court have committed error in allowing the election petition. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to me for the simple reason that strict principle of pleadings are not questionable under Article 227 of the constitution. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to me for the simple reason that strict principle of pleadings are not questionable under Article 227 of the constitution. It is held that improper rejection of nomination paper of Smt. Harbans Kaur implicitly has materially affected the result of election of Pradhan in the instant case and an argument contrary to it is hereby repelled. ( 6 ) IT is to be imbibed that substantial justice cannot be erased on technical arguments having no bearing on the merit of the case. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with emphasis that the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act deserve comparison with the provisions contemplated under U. P. Panchayat Raj Act are of academic nature having no bearing on the merit of the case. In the instant case, I am objectively satisfied that by the impugned orders passed by Election Tribunal and affirmed by revisional court material Justice has been done between the parties. Therefore, I decline to issue a prerogative writ under Article 227 of the Constitution, making the aforesaid two orders, one passed by the Election Tribunal dated 5. 1. 2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition and the other passed by revisional court dated 8. 11. 2001. Annexure-9 to the writ petition, to be ineffective. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed at admission stage in limine. .