Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 201704 (ALL)

VIRENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. PANCHAYATI RAJ AND 9 OTHERS

WRIC/9843/2025 · 2025-10-15

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9843 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Pallavi Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankay Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Akash Asthana, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 5 and Shri Harshit Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the SDM, Jamunaha, Shrawasti in Case No.1672 of 2021 under Section 12 C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner had assailed the aforesaid order by filing a Civil Revision No.2 of 2024 which has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the District Judge, Shrawasti and the validity of that order has also been assailed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the order dismissing election petition and the revisional order cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner ought to have approached this Court seeking invocation of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Another objection raised by the respondents is regarding the courts Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Garima Singh, Harshit Singh, Rohit Tripathi Virendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) having been impleaded as opposite parties. 6. Confronted with the aforesaid objections, learned counsel for the petitioner states that she does not want to press the instant petition and seeks liberty to file a fresh petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. October 15, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 9843 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench