Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1504 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar v. Virendra Pratap Yadav

2018-07-06

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Hausihla Prasad Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner is the elected Gram Pradhan of Village Chiutaha, Block Jangal Kaudia, District Gorakhpur. Election Petition No. T-2016053103628 was filed by respondent no. 1 and the same was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District Gorakhpur vide his judgment and order dated 13.1.2017. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13.1.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, respondent no. 1 filed Revision No. 18 of 2017 before the District Judge, Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid Revision No. 18 of 2017, respondent no. 1 filed an application numbered as Paper No. 27-Ga praying that certain records be summoned by the revisional court as the same would be necessary for adjudication of the aforesaid case. The aforesaid application was initially dismissed by the revisional court vide its order dated 20.3.2018. The order dated 20.3.2018 passed by the revisional court was challenged by respondent no. 1 through Writ-C No. 16345 of 2018 and the aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2018. The order dated 7.5.2018 passed by this Court has been annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. 3. A perusal of the order dated 7.5.2018 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 16345 of 2018 shows that the order dated 20.3.2018 was set-aside by this Court only on the ground that the reasons stated in the order dated 20.3.2018 were contrary to the records of the case and by the aforesaid order, this Court remanded back the matter to the revisional court to pass fresh orders on Paper No. 27-Ga. Consequent to the order dated 7.5.2018 passed by this Court, the revisional court passed a fresh order dated 29.5.2018 whereby it has allowed Paper No. 27-Ga and has summoned the records referred in the aforesaid application filed by respondent no. 1. The order dated 29.5.2018 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. Counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit. 5. A perusal of the order dated 29.5.2018 passed by the revisional court shows that no reasons have been given in the same for allowing Paper No. 27-Ga i.e. the application filed by respondent no. 1. Counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit. 5. A perusal of the order dated 29.5.2018 passed by the revisional court shows that no reasons have been given in the same for allowing Paper No. 27-Ga i.e. the application filed by respondent no. 1. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 29.5.2018 is a non-speaking order and is legally not sustainable. On the aforesaid short point, and without entering into merits of the claim of respondent no. 1 as prayed in his application numbered as Paper No. 27-Ga, the order dated 29.5.2018 passed by the revisional court in Revision No. 18 of 2017 is set-aside. 6. The writ petition is allowed. 7. The matter is remanded back to the revisional court to pass fresh orders on Paper No. 27-Ga within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. It is also clarified that after the decision on the aforesaid application by the revisional court, the revisional court shall decide the revision itself within a period of next one month as directed by this Court previously vide order dated 7.5.2018 passed in Writ - C No. 16345 of 2018.