ORDER : 1. An amendment application supported by an affidavit has been filed today in the Court by the counsel for the petitioner and the same is taken on record. 2. By way of the aforesaid learned counsel for the petitioner prays for amendment in the body of the petition by adding Paragraph Nos.13-A, 13-B & 13-C after paragraph 13 and 20-A after paragraph No.20 and grounds Nos V(A) and V(B) after ground No. V and prayer clause of the petition by adding prayer No.(i)(a) and (1)(b) after prayer No.(i). 3. Learned counsel for respondent has no objection if the amendment application is allowed as the amendments are formal in nature. In view of the above, Amendment Application is allowed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the body of the petition and prayer clause of the petition during the course of the day. Order on the Petition 1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Prakash Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a suitable order or direction setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Additional District& Sessions Judge (POCSO Act-1) Sant Kabir Nagarin Misc. Case No.37 of 2020 arising out of Election Petition No.01 of 2017 (Jagat Vs. Shyam Sundar and others). (i)(a) Issue a suitable order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar and all further proceedings consequent thereupon including the result of recounting. (i)(b) Issue a suitable order or direction directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 referred to above and stay all further proceedings consequent thereupon including the effect of recounting during the pendency of the petition before this Hon’ble Court. (ii) Issue a suitable order or direction directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned judgment and order referred to above and stay all further proceedings consequent threre upon during the pendency of the petition before this Hon’ble Court. (iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of the petition.” 3. Facts in brief as contained in the petition are that the present petitioner contested the election for the post of President of the Nagar Panchayat, Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar which was held on 26.11.2017. The petitioner was elected as President to the aforesaid Nagar Panchayat. The rival of the petitioner namely Jagat son of Sri Dhoop Chandra/respondent No.1 has preferred an Election Petition being Election Petition No.01 of 2017 (Jagat Vs. Shyam Sundar and others). The Election Tribunal/Additional Sessions Judge (POSCO Act-1) Sant Kabir Nagar has finally allowed the aforesaid Election Petition vide its judgment and order dated 07.03.2020. By the aforesaid order, directions were given to the Returning Officer to re-count the votes and declare the result. Further directions were given that the results of the election which was already declared, will be subject to final result declared by the returning officer after recounting of votes and the Election Tribunal further directed the Prescribed Authority/Election Officer/District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar to implement the aforesaid order within ten days. It is further directed that till the aforesaid result is declared, petition will continue to hold the post of President, Nagar Panchayat. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, a petition under Article 227 No.2270 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner before this Court. This Court after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner an respondent No.1 in that petition stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the Election Tribunal till further orders of this Court. After passing the aforesaid order of this Court, various dates were fixed in the matter by the Election Tribunal in the aforesaid petition and ultimately, on 02.02.2021, an order was passed by the Election Tribunal which is under challenge in this petition. 5. It is argued by Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that the order passed by the Election Tribunal is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is argued that once the order passed by the Election Tribunal dated 07.03.2020 was stayed by this Court, there is no rhyme and reason to the Election Tribunal, to pass any fresh order. It is argued that once the order passed by the Election Tribunal dated 07.03.2020 was stayed by this Court, there is no rhyme and reason to the Election Tribunal, to pass any fresh order. It is further argued that findings recorded by the Election Tribunal that the interim order dated 31.07.2020 passed by this Court in the Petition No.2270 of 2020 came to an end after expiry of the period of six months is absolutely illegal. It is further argued that paragraph 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039 will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued that the paragraph 35 of the Asian Resurfacing of Road (supra) which was relied upon by the Election Tribunal will apply only in those cases where proceedings are pending but insofar as the present case is concerned, proceedings of the Election Petition has already been came to an end on 07.03.2020. Hence there is no occasion for the Election Tribunal to pass the order impugned. It is further argued that in view of the fact that an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner in the Petition No.220 of 2020, the order impugned dated 02.02.2021 is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri Kshitish Shalendra lerned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent that the order passed by the Election Tribunal is absolutely perfect and valid and does not call for any interference by this Court. A preliminary objection has also been raised by him that the present petition filed by the petitioner in not at all maintainable and only appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file a stay extension application in his earlier petition. It is argued that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was listed on various occasions but neither any stay extension application was moved nor any prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner in that petition for extension of the interim order. It is argued that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was listed on various occasions but neither any stay extension application was moved nor any prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner in that petition for extension of the interim order. It is further argued that after the judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road (supra), certain more directions were given by a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court on October 145 2020 in Misc. Application No.1577 of 2020 filed in Asian Resurfacing of Road (supra). 7. It is further argued that the Election Petition is still pending consideration and no final decision has been taken on the same more specially in view of the fact that after the order dated 7.3.2020 was passed by the Election Tribunal, various dates were fixed in the matter from time to time but at no point of time, any objection was raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings could not be continued due to the fact that the Election Tribunal has become functus offico after the judgment and order dated 07.03.2020 has been passed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From perusal of the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the Election Tribunal by which the directions were issued to the Returning Officer to recount the votes and declare the result accordingly. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a petition under Article 227 No.2270 of 2020 was filed by the present petitioner. In the said petition, an interim order was granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 31.07.202 which is quoted below:- “Heard Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/District & Sessions Judge (POCSO) Act-1, Sant Kabir Nagar in Election Petition No. 1 of 2017, whereby he has ordered that the Election Petition stands decided in terms that the Chief Election Officer (Local Body/Prescribed Authority), Sant Kabir Nagar shall undertake under his personal supervision, a recount of votes and declare the result thereof. According to the directions carried in the order, some eight directions in the matter of recount have been issued, that read as follows: ^^1- erx.kuk ifj.kke esa uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ [kyhykckn ds pquko fnukafdr 26-11-2017 esa uxj fudk; [kyhykckn esa fdrus ernkrk Fks] mudk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tk;sxk] ,oa 2- erx.kuk ifj.kke esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k tk;sxk dh uxj fudk; pquko esa fdrus ernkrkx.k us vius er dk Á;ksx fd;k rFkk fd;k rFkk fdrus ernkrkx.k us erkf/kdkj dk Á;ksx ugha fd;k rFkk fdrus ernkrkx.k us erkf/kdkj dk Á;ksx ugha fd;k] ,oa 3- erx.kuk ifj.kke esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k tk;sxk dh pquko esa ÁR;sd cwFk ij fdrus erks dks mi;ksx esa ugha yk;k x;k gS] ,oa 4- ihBklsu vf/kdkjh }kjk erx.kuk ds le; Á;ksx esa yk;s x;s vfHkys[kksa ls Á;qDr ,oa vÁ;qDr erksa dk feyku fd;k tk;sxk] ,oa 5- ÁR;sd voS/k er dk i`Fkd&i`Fkd o.kZu fd;k tk;xk fd veq[k Øe la[;k dk voS/k er fdl v/kkj ij voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS] ,oa 6- ;g Á;kl fd;k tk;sxk fd fofgr Ákf/kdkjh ,d foLr`r vkns'k ikfjr djs] ftlls Li"V ifjyf{kr gks ,oa i{kdkj ;g tku lds fd dkSu lk er fdl vk/kkj ij voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS] ,oa 7- leLr dk;Zokgh lh0lh0Vh0oh0 dSejs dh fuxjkuh esa laiUu dh tkosxh erx.kuk dh leLr dk;Zokgh dh fofM;ksxzkQh Hkh dh tk,xh ,oa voS/k erksa dh fo'ks"k #i ls ohfM;ksxzkQh esa ladfyr ohfM;ks dh ,d Áfr lhy can gksdj i=koyh esa nkf[ky dh tk,xh] ,oa 8- mijksDr ?kksf"kr ifj.kke iwoZ ds erx.kuk ifj.kkeksa ij ÁHkkoh gksxk rnuqlkj uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~] [kyhykckn ds v/;{k in ds fuokZpu dk ifj.kke iqu% ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA rc rd orZeku O;oLFkk tkjh jgsxhA^^ “The submission of Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel is that the disposition of the Election Petition by the Additional District Judge sitting as the Election Tribunal under Section 19 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is manifestly illegal. The orders that can be passed by the Additional District Judge, sitting as the Election Tribunal, are specified by the Act of 1916, under Section 25 of the Act, as also Section 26. The orders that can be passed by the Additional District Judge, sitting as the Election Tribunal, are specified by the Act of 1916, under Section 25 of the Act, as also Section 26. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that a reading of Section 25 of the Act shows that the District Judge may, after hearing parties and holding inquiry, dismiss the petition and under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 declare a casual vacancy to have been created or grant recriminatory relief under Sub clause (b) of sub Section (2) of Section 25 of the Act, declaring another person elected. However, an order of the kind impunged, in the submission of learned Senior Advocate, cannot be passed where no order has been passed by the learned District Judge in terms of Section 25 of the Act but he has delegated all his powers of determination to the Chief Election Officer, requiring him to do a recount and declare the result of the elections afresh. It is also submitted that one of the directions made by the District Judge that recount is to be done under the eye of a C.C.T.V. Camera, violates the principle of secrecy of ballet, and that on that count also, the impunged order is manifestly illegal. Sri Markanday Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 submits that the impugned order is not a final order. Even though he accepts that the the learned Additional District Judge says that the Election Petition stands decided, he says that when a final order is passed a writ petition would lie to this Court. But, for the present, only a Review petition can be moved by the petitioner. A prima facie case is made out. Admit. Issue notice. Sri Markanday Rai, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. He is granted three weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Steps be taken to serve the other respondents within a week by RPAD. List for orders on 24.08.2020 in the additional cause list alaong with a report regarding service and status of pleadings. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2020 Issue notice. Sri Markanday Rai, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Steps be taken to serve the other respondents within a week by RPAD. List for orders on 24.08.2020 in the additional cause list alaong with a report regarding service and status of pleadings. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2020 Issue notice. Sri Markanday Rai, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Until further orders, operation of the impugned order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the Election Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)-1, Sant Kabir Nagar in Election Petition No. 01 of 2017 Jagat vs. Shyam Sunder Verma and others shall remain suspended.” 10. Vide order dated 10.02.2021, entire records of the aforesaid petition was called for by this Court for perusal. From perusal of the same, it is clear that after interim order dated 31.07.2020, various dates were fixed in the matter but at no point of time, any prayer has been made for extension of the interim order. It further reveals that the lastly, the aforesaid petition was listed on 11.1.2020. On the said date, matter was fixed in the week commencing from 22.03.2021 but even on the said date, no prayer was made by the counsel for the petitioner for extension of the interim order dated 31.07.2020. It further reveals from perusal of the record that no application whatsoever has been filed by the petitioner in that petition for extension of interim order specially in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road (supra). Paragraph 35 of the aforesaid judgment which was relied upon by the Court below is reproduced below:- 35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced. 11. He further relied upon the order dated October 15, 2020 The three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court made following observations in Misc. Application No. 1577 of 2020:- “We must remind the Magistrates all over the country that in our pyramidical structure under the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is at the Apex, and the High Courts, though not subordinate administratively, are certainly subordinate judicially. This kind of orders fly in the face of para 35 of our judgment. We expect that the Magistrates all over the country will follow our order in letter and spirit. Whatever stay has been granted by any court including the High Court automatically expires within a period of six months, and unless extension is granted for good reason, as per our judgment, within the next six months, the trial Court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same. 12. He further relied upon an order dated 14.01.2020 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.204 of 2020 (Syed Raees Ahmad Vs. Om Prakash, Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act. 12. He further relied upon an order dated 14.01.2020 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.204 of 2020 (Syed Raees Ahmad Vs. Om Prakash, Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act. In the aforesaid judgment following principles were laid down in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road (supra) :- (i) The trial court and the Superior Court is bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing; (ii) It is incumbent upon the party in whose favour the stay order is operating to approach the Superior Court/High Court, as the case may be, and obtain a speaking order in terms of Asian Resurfacing; (iii) In absence of a speaking stay order after a lapse of six months from the date of judgment rendered in Asian Resurfacing or from the date of the stay order whichever is later would not bind the trial court; (iv) Asian Resurfacing is judgment in rem; the aggrieved litigating party is bound to obtain a fresh speaking stay order in terms of the Supreme Court judgment and not wait until the trial resumes after six months; (v) Non speaking order extending the stay, though being an order of the Superior Court/High Court, would not bind the trial court in view of the law declared in Asian Resurfacing; (vi) All interim orders staying the trial would stand automatically vacated after lapse of six months unless extended by a speaking order in exceptional case; (vii) Where the trial court has proceeded with the trial following Asian Resurfacing/High Court Circular, that would not preclude the aggrieved party to the trial to obtain a fresh speaking stay order from the Superior Court/High Court. 13. It further reveals from perusal of the record that after the interim order was granted by this Court on 31.07.2020, various dates were fixed in the Election Petition by the Election Tribunal but at no point of time any objection was raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings should not be permitted to go ahead in view of the order dated 31.07.2020 by which the proceedings were stayed. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings before the Tribunal is continuing even today and the order dated 07.03.2020 is only inter-locatory in nature. 14. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings before the Tribunal is continuing even today and the order dated 07.03.2020 is only inter-locatory in nature. 14. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order passed by this Election Tribunal dated 02.02.2020 is absolutely perfect and does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. The petition has no merit and liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.