Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35029 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2470 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shahabuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari,Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sumit Daga Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari and Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the returned candidate. It is further submitted that the election petition was filed by the respondent no. 4 in which an order was passed on 15.07.2022 directing recounting. Although, in the order dated 15.07.2022, no date was fixed for recounting, however the Prescribed Authority by subsequent order fixed the date of the recounting as 28.07.2022 and thereafter, in the meantime, the revision was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.07.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the recounting process was completed by the Prescribed Authority and the result was declared, declaring the respondent no. 4 as the winning candidate by one vote by order dated 28.04.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent development, an amendment application was filed before the revisional court which was dismissed by order dated 24.07.2023 against which a writ petition was filed which was allowed by order dated 11.12.2023, against which an S.L.P. was also filed which had been dismissed. The amendment application was finally allowed on 10.01.2024. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although in the impugned order, the revisional court has remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority, however the impugned order has not been set aside. It is further submitted that such an aspect is a grave illegality as the revisional court would have jurisdiction to remand the matter only when the order under challenge was set aside and the revisional court could not have passed an order directing remand of the matter for decision afresh without setting aside the impugned orders in the revision. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 submits that insofar as the remand of the matter without setting aside the order under challenge is concerned, he proposes that the matter be remanded back to the revisional court for decision afresh as the revisional court ought to have set aside the order challenged in the revision prior to remanding the matter. Since such exercise has not been completed, therefore the matter is required to be remanded back after setting aside the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that he would have no objection to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the revisional court for decision afresh. While passing the fresh order, revisional court is required to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law and to record a finding with regard to the validity of the order challenged in the revision. Aforesaid exercise after remand by the revisional court shall be completed within a period of two months. The parties would be free to raise objections before the revisional court and the revisional court shall pass the order without being influenced by the earlier impugned order. 9. The writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Aiman Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad