Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116112 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22885 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shayada Khatoon Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Tiwari,Vrindavan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Chandra Pandey,Tarun Agrawal Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1.Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vrindavan Mishra and Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Devansh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Smt. Varanta Devi and perused the record. 2. Election Petition No. 02040 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. T202117650302040) was filed by respondent no.4-Smt. Varanta Devi before the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Officer /Prescribed Authority under Panchayati Raj Act, 1947, Tehsil Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar as provided under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said election petition, order dated 25.06.2025 was passed by the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Officer /Prescribed Authority for re-counting of votes. Apart from various other arguments, one of argument has been raised by Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that before issuing the directions for recounting of votes, the Prescribed Authority is duty bound to frame and examine the issues i.e., specific pleadings in support of the prayer of recounting of votes and the necessary evidences brought before the Election Tribunal in support of the said pleadings. It is further argued that the order passed by the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Officer / Prescribed Authority dated 25.06.2025 for recounting of votes is per se, illegal and same is liable to be set aside. 4.It is argued by Sri Devansh Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4-Smt. Varanta Devi that the order impugned was rightly passed by the respondent no.2 for recounting of votes. It is further argued that petitioner does not have any prejudice in case recounting will take place. 5. From the perusal of record, it is clear that order impugned has been passed without following the procedure under law. It is also clear that before passing the aforesaid order, issues were not framed, which is condition precedent before passing such kind of order. Apart from the same and after going through the order passed by the respondent no.2, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that only after noting down the contention made by the learned counsel for the parties without recording any prima facie satisfaction, order impugned has been passed by the respondent no.2, which is not permissible in law. 6. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.2- Prescribed Authority is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority, Tehsil Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar is directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. With the above observation, the present writ petition is allowed. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents will communicate about this order to respondent no.2- Sub Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority,Tehsil Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar forthwith. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad