Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2793 (ALL)

Shahnaz v. State of U. P

2016-08-11

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2016
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the records. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.6.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh in Election Petition No. T20160257054705477 (Raj Kumar vs. Shahnaz & another) whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the election petition was preferred on totally vague and unsustainable allegations. No specific averments were made as to when and who had mingled the votes casted in favour of applicant with the bundle of votes casted in favour of petitioner. There is no specific allegation that who has put 50 illegal votes in the bundle of votes casted in favour of the petitioner. There are vague allegations that irregularities were committed in the election of Pradhan for village Balipur, Post Pure Gosai, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh in which petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan. It is submitted that on receiving notice of the said election petition, petitioner had preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. The prescribed authority without properly considering the submissions made therein has rejected the application in a cursory manner, without giving reasons. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his submissions has taken the Court to the averments made in the election petition (plaint), particularly, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Yadav vs. Usha Rani and others; [ 2016 (114) ALR 827 ]. 6. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the prescribed authority has given its reason in rejection of the application of petitioner preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 7. It is also submitted that the election petition preferred by the opposite party no. 3 is required to be decided on merit. The petitioner being the elected candidate is trying to create hindrance in disposal of the said election petition. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 9. 7. It is also submitted that the election petition preferred by the opposite party no. 3 is required to be decided on merit. The petitioner being the elected candidate is trying to create hindrance in disposal of the said election petition. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 9. An election petition under Section 12-C U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Act) was filed by opposite party no. 3 challenging the election of petitioner on the post of Gram Pradhan for Village Balipur, Post Pure Gosai, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. The petitioner had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint which has been decided by the impugned order. 10. Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; and (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9. Proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. 11. It is not in dispute that the opposite party no. 3 being a loosing candidate had preferred an election petition under Section 12-C of the Act challenging the election of petitioner. The opposite party no. 11. It is not in dispute that the opposite party no. 3 being a loosing candidate had preferred an election petition under Section 12-C of the Act challenging the election of petitioner. The opposite party no. 3 as such had a cause of action to maintain the election petition filed under Section 12-C of the Act. 12. So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the election petition was filed on vague and irrelevant allegations as set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, the allegation in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 indicates that the applicant (opposite party no. 3) has alleged that the votes casted in favour of applicant were intermingled in the bundle of votes casted in favour of petitioner (opposite party no. 1 in the election petition). It is also alleged that 50 invalid votes which bear the stamp of two election symbols were put in the bundle of votes casted in favour of petitioner (opposite party no. 1 in the election petition). It also alleged that grave irregularities were made in the counting of votes. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the plaint does not disclose as to who has done the aforesaid illegal acts and how and when the same has been done, as such, the allegations made in the election petition are vague. 14. In this regard, it is needless to observe that the election petition is to be decided by the prescribed authority considering the evidence on record and the prescribed authority is fully competent to summon the relevant records of the election concerned in order to verify the allegations made in the election petition. The allegations made in the plaint can be verified after perusal of the relevant records. The details as to who has made such illegal acts and as to when and how it has been done are not very relevant for that purpose to verify the allegations made in the election petition, as such, I am of the considered view that the election petition preferred by the opposite party no. 3 cannot be thrown out on the allegation that it is filed on vague and irrelevant allegations. 15. 3 cannot be thrown out on the allegation that it is filed on vague and irrelevant allegations. 15. So far as the judgment in the case of Ram Lakhan Yadav (supra) is concerned, the Court has opined that though the paragraphs of election petition vaguely recite that on many occasion ballot papers of election petitioner were mixed with ballot paper of returned candidates but the details are missing. The petition does not disclose specific point of objection. The Court in that case has come to conclusion that it is evident that except vague and general allegations nothing specific has been stated. The Court, therefore, has allowed the petition setting aside the order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 16. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each and every individual case. In that particular case of Ram Lakhan Yadav (supra), the Court has come to conclusion that the election petition was filed by making vague allegations which do not contain specific details, however, in the present case, as observed above, this Court has come to conclusion that the order passed by the learned Court below under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, as such, I am of the considered view that the judgment in the case of Ram Lakhan Yadav (supra) is of no assistance to petitioner. 17. The order impugned indicates that the prescribed authority while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has applied its mind and has passed a reasoned order. It does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 18. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.