Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1205 (ALL)

SANGRAM SINGH YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-04-26

ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2007
( 1 ) SHRI B. N. SIngh appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondents No. 1, and 4. Issue notice to respondents No. 5, 6 and 7. Respondents are allowed three weeks time to file a counter affidavit. List thereafter. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition , the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29. 3. 2007 and 6. 4. 2007 passed by State Government. The petitioners case in the writ petition is that respondent No. 7 has been posted as Junior Engineer in Zila Panchayat, Ballia for last 24 years and District Balia is also his Home Town. For Assembly Election of 2007 , the Election Commission of India has issued order dated 16. 12. 2006 annexure 8 to the writ petition issuing instruction that no officer connected with elections directly or indirectly should be allowed to continue in the present district of posting. (a) if she/he is posted in her/his home district. (b) if she/he has completed three years in that district during last four years. ( 3 ) IN pursuance of above order of Election Commission an order dated 12. 3. 2007 was passed transferring the petitioner to Zila Panchayat Rai Bareilly. The respondent No. 7 was also relieved but subsequently on 29. 3. 2007, the State Government passed an order staying the order on the ground that the respondent No. 7 not being a returning officer in the election is not covered by the instructions of the Election Commission of India dated 16. 12. 2006. However, looking to the fact that respondent No. 7 is posted in District Ballia for last 24 years it was stated that permission is being sought from the Commission for transfer of the respondent No. 7. Subsequently a report was submitted by the State Government dated 29. 3. 2007 seeking the permission of the Commission for relieving of respondent No. 7 from Zila Panchayat , Ballia and his joining of Zila Panchayat Rai Barreily rrily. An order was passed on 4. 4. 2007 asking the State Government to reverse the order and the status-quo ante as was prior to 21. 2. 2007. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which an order passed by Returning Officer has been brought on the record in which respondent No. 7 has been shown as Presiding Officer in one of the Polling Booths. 4. 2007 asking the State Government to reverse the order and the status-quo ante as was prior to 21. 2. 2007. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which an order passed by Returning Officer has been brought on the record in which respondent No. 7 has been shown as Presiding Officer in one of the Polling Booths. ( 4 ) THE petitioners counsel further submits that the further that petitioner is also a candidate who is contesting the election of Assembly and the father of respondent No. 7 is also contesting candidate from the same constituency. Petitioner has locus to challenge the orders passed by State Government since it affects the petitioners right to get the fair and free election conducted. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of Election Commission of India dated 16. 12. 2006 is fully applicable on respondent no. 7 and there was no error in the transfer order dated 12. 2. 2007. By stay of the transfer order petitioner has been permitted to continue at Ballia which defeats the order of Election Commission of India dated 16. 12. 2006. It is further submitted that in the facts of the present case, the respondent No. 3 ought ot have permitted joining of respondent No. 7 at Rai Bareilly in pursuance of the transfer order dated 12. 3. 2007. ( 6 ) I have considered the submission and perused the record. The order dated 29. 3. 2007 has been passed on the premise that respondent No. 7 is not affected by the order of the Election Commission dated 16. 12. 2006. The order dated 16. 12. 2006 provided that no officer connected with election directly or indirectly should be allowed to continue in the present district of posting if he is posted in his home district and he has completed three years in that district. ( 7 ) IN the facts of the present case especially that petitioner has been given duties as presiding officer for the Assembly Election 2007 in District Ballia prima facie it cannot be accepted that respondent No. 7 is not connected with the election. The basis of stay of the suspension order appears to be unfounded. ( 8 ) THE order of the Election Commission as noted in the order of the State Government dated 4. 4. The basis of stay of the suspension order appears to be unfounded. ( 8 ) THE order of the Election Commission as noted in the order of the State Government dated 4. 4. 2007 does not indicate consideration of the report of State Government dated 29. 3. 2007 filed as annexure-13 to the writ petition. In view of above, the order dated 29. 3. 2007 (anenxure-12) and the order dated 4. 4. 2007 (annexure-14) shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. .