1
Court No.21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42889 of 2009
Jokhu Prasad
Versus
State of U.P. and others
Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46046 of 2009
Rakesh Singh
Versus
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42889 of 2009 has been filed
questioning the validity of the meeting which was to be held in
pursuance of the order dated 08.08.2009 issued by the District
Panchayat Raj Officer. On presentation of writ petition this Court
had passed following order:
“Learned Standing Counsel? has accepted notice
for the respondents no. 1 to 3.
Sri H.K. Shukla has put in appearance on behalf of
Sri Rakesh Singh, Caveator. If he is so advised,
he may file an application for impleadment along
with counter affidavit.
Learned Standing Counsel may also file counter
affidavit within two weeks. The petitioner shall
have three days to file rejoinder affidavit.
List on 7.9.2009.
Till that date, although the meeting scheduled to
be held on 23.8.2009 shall take place but the
effect of the resolution passed on that date shall
not be given till 7.9.2009.”
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46046 of 2009 has been filed
for declaration of result of no confidence motion.
Since common controversy is involved in the aforesaid two
writ petitions, as such both of them have been taken up together
for hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
2
On the matter being taken up today, the parties to the
dispute have confined their arguments only on this aspect of the
matter as to whether on 23.08.2009 election had taken place or
not.
Sri Vivek Saran, Advocate, contended with vehemence that
no election had taken place and for this purpose reliance has
been placed by him,on the statement of fact mentioned by the
District Panchayat Raj Officer in paragraph 9 of the counter
affidavit filed by him in writ petition No.42889 of 2009.
Sri Balwant Singh, Advocate, on the other hand, contended
that the elections had taken place and the records were sealed.
As there was claim and counter claim and entire matter was
hinging round the fact as to whether the elections had taken place
or not, original record had been summoned and the same has
been produced by the learned Standing Counsel.
The record in question reflects that elections were held on
23.08.2009, wherein voting had taken place and thereafter entire
records were sealed and they are lying with the authority
concerned in the office of the District Magistrate.
Once such a factual position has emerged that voting had taken
place on the date fixed and sealed records are lying with the District
Magistrate, in this background parties to the dispute have agreed that
the counting be done and result be declared, accordingly.
Consequently, writ petitions are disposed of with the direction
that the counting of the election, which had taken place on
23.08.2009, be done and the results of the same be declared
accordingly.
No order as to costs.
25.01.2010.
SRY
3