Savitri Devi vs State of U.P. and Others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Zaki Ullah Khan, JJ.—We have heard Shri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6, Shri S.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Nisheeth Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the election of the respondent No. 7 as Block Pramukh, Kshettra Panchayat Meja, District-Allahabad as unopposed candidate on 4.1.2013.

It is submitted by Shri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not permitted to file her nomination on 2.1.2013. Various factual averments have been made by the petitioner narrating the circumstances in which the petitioner could not file her nomination on 2.1.2013.

It is further submitted that even though the respondent No. 7 has been declared elected but the election of the respondent No. 7 has not so far been notified.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 and Shri Nisheeth Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 submit that the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is challenging the election of the respondent No. 7 as Block Pramukh.

It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing the Election Petition as per the provisions contained in the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, and therefore, no interference is called for in the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is questioning the election of the respondent No. 7 as Block Pramukh on various grounds, as raised in the present Writ Petitioner Determination of factual questions would be necessary for which leading of oral and documentary evidence would be required. Such exercise cannot appropriately be done in Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Chapter IV of the aforesaid 1994 Rules provides for filing of Election Petition for questioning the election of a Pramukh or Up Pramukh.

Rule 35 contained in Chapter IV of the aforesaid 1994 Rules makes provisions regarding time and manner of presenting election petitions. Rule 36 contained in Chapter IV of the aforesaid 1994 Rules lays down provisions regarding Form, etc. of election petition.

Again, Rule 40 contained in Chapter IV of the aforesaid 1994 Rules lays down provisions regarding procedure for trial and hearing of an election petition. Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have been made applicable.

Thus, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing Election Petition under the provisions of the aforesaid 1994 Rules for redressal of her alleged grievances as raised in the Writ Petition.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the view that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the aforesaid 1994 Rules. The present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.