Om Pati vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate being prescribed Authority

K.P. Bhandari, J.—Pitambar (deceased) was elected as a Panch. On election petition filed against him, his election was set aside by the Illaqa Magistrate Pitambar died during pendency of the election. His wife, Om Pati, petitioner herein, filed an appeal against the order of the Illaqa Magistrate setting aside the election. The Additional District Judge dismissed the plea on the ground that Om Pati, the widow, had no right to file the appeal. According to him, against an order of the Illaqa Magistrate setting aside the election of the Panch, his legal heirs are not entitled to file the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Additional District Judge committed an error in holding that the appeal was not maintainable Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment of the Additional District Judge is correct and deserves to be upheld.

I have considered the matter. Once the election of a Panch is set aside, it casts a sort of stigma on him. Surely, the Panch/Sarpanch is entitled to file an appeal. Election can be set aside on various grounds. It can be set aside if the nomination paper of a candidate were wrongfully rejected; it can be set aside on the ground that the returned candidate has committed a corrupt practice. In my opinion, simply because the returned candidate passed away, it cannot be said that his wife cannot question the legality of the judgment setting aside the election of the returned candidate. His widow is entitled to vindicate the honour of her husband by questioning the correctness or the order in a court of appeal. A provision regarding appeal cannot be interpreted narrowly. The only remedy to get rid of the judgment is the right of appeal. In my opinion, the widow is fully competent to file the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge was in error in holding that she had no locus standi to file the appeal. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed.

Shri Ramesh Hooda, counsel for the respondent, stated at the Bar that this petition arises out of the election of the Panch held on 6. 8.1988 He has further stated that fresh elections have taken place after the expiry of the term of the election held on 6. 8.1988. He further submits that the writ petition has, consequently, become, infructuous.

I have held that the Additional District Judge was in error in holding that the appeal was not competent. Therefore, the order of the Additional District Judge is set aside. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, the appeal has become infructuous. As fresh elections of Panches have taken place, it is not necessary to remit the case to the Additional District Judge for redeciding the matter.