Read Time: 07 minutes
The petitioner had filed the plea against CM's election alleging that it was not legal. Court found that since the petitioner had avoided filing an election petition raising his grievance, he was trying to do something indirectly that the law prohibited him to do directly.
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed questioning Yogi Aditynath's continuance as Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from September 25, 2022.
The petitioner, Dr. M Ismail Faruqui who appeared in person, had alleged that Yogi Aditynath was not qualified to contest the election for the current legislative assembly of UP due to violation of provisions of Rule 4 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while imposing a cost of Rs 11,000 on the petitioner for wasting court's valuable time, dismissed the plea.
The bench observed that earlier also the petitioner had filed a similar petition. Court held that the petitioner seemed to be in habit of filing petitions of this kind. It said,
“This court having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, finds the present petition to be very amusing. The petitioner seems to be on a spree of filing this kind of petition as admittedly, an identical petition praying inter-alia for the same relief vide W.P © no. 5627 of 2022, was dismissed as withdrawn”.
Further, while deliberating on the merit of the present petition, court observed that " as per Section 80 of the Representation of People's Act, 195, no election shall be called in question except by an Election Petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part".
Court noted that in the present case, the sum & substance of the relief being sought by the petitioner was on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Chief Minister about which the petitioner had alleged that it was not as per the provisions of the said rules. On this ground only, the petitioner had claimed that the election of Yogi Adityanath as a Member of the Legislative Assembly was not legal.
Court noted, "In the first blush, the argument of the petitioner seems to be very attractive, but on a deep enquiry it is apparent that the petitioner is drawing the aforesaid analogy by presuming that the election of the Respondent is not proper. The petitioner besides drawing attention of this court to the Affidavit filed by the respondent in terms of Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 has not been able to show a single document which would show that the election of the respondent has been found by any competent authority to be not proper."
Moreover, the court observed that it seemed that by not filing an election petition, as in effect the petitioner was trying to challenge Yogi Adityanath's election from the Gorakhpur seat, and instead filing a writ petition, the petitioner was trying to do something indirectly which the law prohibited him to do directly.
Therefore, finding that the petitioner also had no locus to file the instant writ petition, as he was neither an Elector nor a candidate at the election of 322- Gorakhpur Urban Legislative Assembly constituency, court rejected the plea.
"The courts have also from time to time held that no litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in a manner as he wishes.....The court cannot be oblivious to the fact that today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest," the court said.
Case Title: Dr M Ismail Faruqui v. Shri Adityanath
Please Login or Register
