Urmila Devi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 471
NON- REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7427 OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 9638/2023)
URMILA DEVI ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. Heard. Leave Granted.
I. BRIEF FACTS:
2. This Appeal arises out of an Election issue between the
Appellant i.e. (Urmila Devi) and Respondent No. 3 (Manoj
Devi). The facts in a nutshell is as follows:
2.1. Both the Appellant, Respondent No. 3 and 18 others
stood for Three Tier Panchayat (Pradhan) Election,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEHA GUPTA
Date: 2026.05.11
17:20:19 IST
Reason:
2021 held in respect of Election of Pradhan of Parauli
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 1 of 25
Sughapur Village, Block - Jaithara, Teshil – Aliganj,
District – Etah, Uttar Pradesh.
2.2. After the voting was over, the counting of votes went
for almost two complete dates i.e. it commenced from
nd rd
2 May 2021 at 11.00 a.m. and got completed on 03
May 2021 at 10.00 a.m. As per the version of the
Appellant, many candidates complained about the
irregularities during the counting of votes and about
the manner in which elections were conducted.
However, the Authorities completed the voting and
declared the results. As per the results, Respondent No.
3 was declared as Returned Candidate and the
Appellant herein was declared as having lost by a
margin of 2 votes.
2.3.
Aggrieved by the procedural discrepancies during the
counting of votes and aggrieved by the results of the
elections, the Appellant filed an Election Petition No.
1
2646 of 2021 , in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer
2
(Prescribed Authority), Aliganj, District-Etah under
Section 12C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act,
3
1947 . He also prayed for re-counting of votes as there
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Election Petition’.
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the SDO’.
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 2 of 25
was a difference between the number of total valid
votes and number of valid votes counted.
3. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 3 contended as
follows:
3.1. The Appellant challenged the 2021 Gram Panchayat
Pradhan election of Parauli Suhagpur (District Etah)
alleging serious irregularities in the counting process,
including improper supervision by election officials,
chaotic counting arrangements, discrepancies in ballot
numbers, and wrongful rejection of valid ballot papers
in violation of Rules 104, 105 and 106 of the U.P.
4
Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 . The Appellant
contended that these violations materially affected the
election result, and therefore sought for recounting of
votes and declaration of the opponent’s election as
invalid, with a prayer to declare the petitioner duly
elected after recount.
3.2. Summons were issued and served on the Respondent
No. 3, and Respondent No.3 (Smt. Manoj Devi) filed a
statement contesting the petition by filing the
reply/written statement on 22.07.2022, after which
issues were framed based on the pleadings. Despite
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 3 of 25
several opportunities, the Respondent No.3 failed to
produce evidence or appear regularly, leading the
Authority to hear the Appellants arguments ex parte
and later, the opposite party filed a new vakalatnama
and sought another date, which was considered in view
of principles of natural justice.
II. THE ORDER OF THE SDO:
4. After examination of the evidence tendered by both the
parties and the material available on record, the SDO
ordered for Re-counting of the votes vide order dated:
05.11.2022. The reasons assigned by the SDO are as
follows:
4.1. During the proceedings, the Appellant produced
evidence through affidavits and witnesses, which were
cross-examined. On examining the election records,
particularly Election Form 45 (Part-1) and Election
Form 46 (Part-2), the court found discrepancies in the
vote counts at certain polling booths, including
differences in the number of valid votes recorded for
candidates. Since the margin of victory between the
Appellant and the respondent was only two votes (586
vs. 584), these discrepancies appeared significant.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 4 of 25
4.2. Relying on judgments of the Allahabad High Court
regarding recounting where specific and material
irregularities are shown, the court concluded that prima
facie discrepancies existed in the election records.
Considering the narrow margin of votes and the
irregularities found in the forms, the court held that
recounting was necessary in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the election petition was allowed, the
respondent’s objections were rejected, and the
Authority ordered recounting of votes for the post of
Gram Pradhan, to be conducted on 07.11.2022 at 10:00
A.M., under the supervision of the Tehsildar, Aliganj.
III. THE WRIT PETITION AND THE ORDER OF THE
HIGH COURT
5. After the pronouncement of the order by SDO on
05.11.2022, Respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No.
5 6
33777 of 2022 before the High Court of Allahabad
challenging the order dated: 05.11.2022. Each event which
took place after the above-mentioned Writ Petition which
was filed on 06.11.2022 is important to be noted and it plays
a crucial role for the adjudication of the matter. The list of
5
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Writ Petition’.
6
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 5 of 25
dates along with the event which took place from the date
of filing of Writ Petition by Respondent No. 3 is as follows:
06.11.2022 Respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 33777/2022
before Allahabad High Court challenging recounting
order and interim stay granted on 05.11.2022 order.
12.12.2022 High Court extended interim stay on recounting.
15.03.2023 High Court vacated interim stay on recounting.
16.03.2023 Respondent No. 3 filed Civil Misc.
Recall Application to reinstate stay on recounting.
17.03.2023 Recounting was conducted and Petitioner declared
winner by 12 votes.
It is important to note here that the Court of Deputy
Collector i.e. Prescribed Authority which had passed
an order dated: 05.11.2022, declared the election
results after recounting.
20.03.2023 District Panchayat Raj Officer issued letter to
administer oath to Petitioner as Pradhan.
20.03.2023 Appellant took oath as Pradhan; electoral certificate
still in force.
6. The High Court vide judgment and order dated: 29.03.2023,
allowed the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 3 and set
aside the order of recounting passed on 05.11.2022 and
other consequential recounting and result of election. The
reasons assigned by the High Court are as follows:
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 6 of 25
6.1. Before examining the merits of the case, the Court
noted a preliminary legal issue. The Prescribed
Authority, by its order dated 05.11.2022, had allowed
the election petition and granted final relief even
before the recounting of votes actually took place. By
finally deciding the election petition and directing
recounting simultaneously, the authority effectively
became functus officio, meaning it lost jurisdiction to
pass any further orders in the matter.
6.2. The High Court relied on the Judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of the High Court in Parshuram vs.
State of U.P and Ors. (decided on 23.12.2022 –
7
Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2021) ,
whereunder it came to be held that once an Election
Tribunal or Prescribed Authority finally decides an
election petition, it becomes functus officio and cannot
pass further orders, even if recounting is directed. The
judgment also referred to the principle laid down by
this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad
8
Ishaque and Ors , emphasizing that after the final
decision of an election petition, the tribunal has no
authority to continue in exercising jurisdiction.
7
Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2021
8
AIR 1955 SC 233.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 7 of 25
Moreover, under Article 243-O of the Constitution, an
election to a Panchayat can be challenged only through
an election petition, and once such petition is finally
decided, the authority cannot reopen or continue the
proceedings.
6.3. Applying these principles, the High Court held that,
the Prescribed Authority committed a serious legal
error by allowing recounting and declaring the
election petitioner as the returned candidate after
finally deciding the Election Petition.
Consequently, the impugned order dated
05.11.2022, along with the subsequent recounting
and election result, was set aside. Although such
matters are generally remanded for reconsideration,
the Court declined to do so because the impugned order
itself failed to satisfy the legal requirements for
recounting. Hence, the writ petition was allowed, and
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Prescribed Authority
was cautioned to act carefully in future election
matters.
7. It is this order of the High Court which has been challenged
by the Appellant before this Court, by filing this Appeal.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 8 of 25
IV. THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES:
8. Mr. Ashok Anand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the
Appellant, contended as follows:
8.1. The High Court erred in interfering with the order of
the SDO/Prescribed Authority, which had directed
recounting of votes; High Court had failed to properly
consider the factual findings recorded by the SDO,
particularly that there was a difference of 110 votes
between the total valid votes cast and the total valid
votes counted; the margin of victory in the original
result was only two votes, which itself justified
recounting to ensure accuracy and fairness in the
electoral process.
8.2. It was further argued that upon recounting, the
Appellant had been declared the returned candidate by
a margin of 13 votes, demonstrating that the
irregularities in counting had materially affected the
election result. According to the Appellant, the High
Court ignored the evidence on record showing serious
irregularities committed by election officials during
the counting process and failed to appreciate that the
Election Petition contained specific pleadings and
supporting evidence regarding these irregularities. The
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 9 of 25
Appellant also contends that Election Petition had been
properly adjudicated after giving both the parties
sufficient opportunity to present evidence and
arguments and as such High Court ought not to have
interfered with the same.
8.3. The Appellant also contends that the Prescribed
Authority was legally competent to order recounting,
and respondent had an alternative statutory remedy of
filing a Revision under Section 12C(6) of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the District Judge. It
is further argued that the writ petition before the High
Court was devoid of merit and had become infructuous
after the recounting, in which the Appellant was
declared elected. Lastly, the Appellant emphasizes that
free and fair elections are fundamental to democracy,
and therefore the High Court should not have
interfered with the order ensuring transparency and
correctness in the election process.
9. Mr. Shaurya Sahay and Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Learned
Advocates appearing on behalf of the State Authorities
(Respondent No. 1,2 and 21) have filed their reply and
contended that statutory framework under Section 12C of
the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the U.P. Panchayat
Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, which
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 10 of 25
govern the filing, hearing, and decision of election petitions.
It is submitted that Prescribed Authority acted strictly in
accordance with these provisions, particularly Rule 4(3),
which empowers the authority to declare another candidate
duly elected if the election of the returned candidate is found
invalid. It is further contended that the recounting order was
justified because the margin of victory was only two votes
and evidence indicated irregularities in counting. Reliance
is placed on rulings of this Court in Ram Sewak Yadav v.
9
Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Others , Udey Chand v. Surat
10
Singh and Another , and Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar
11
and Others , to contend that recounting is permissible
where material irregularities are shown. Therefore, it is
asserted that actions of the authorities were lawful, bona
fide, and consistent with the statutory scheme. He further
contended that as per the status quo order of this Court dated
15.05.2023, Respondent No. 3 is presently performing the
duties of the Pradhan.
10. Mr. Kaushal Yadav and Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra,
Learned Counsels appearing for Respondent No.
3/Successful Writ Petitioner contended as follows:
9
1964 SCC OnLine SC 249.
10
(2009) 10 SCC 170.
11
(2025) 4 SCC 180.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 11 of 25
10.1. The impugned Judgment of the High Court does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India; the High Court rightly set aside
the order dated 05.11.2022 of the Prescribed Authority
directing recounting of votes on account of Election
Petition being allowed, the Prescribed Authority had
become functus-officio under Section 12-C of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and had no jurisdiction to
pass further orders, including altering the election
result on the basis of recounting. The High Court relied
on settled law and precedents, including Hari Vishnu
Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (supra) and
12
Parshuram v. State of U.P. and Ors , whereunder it
was held that once an election petition is finally
decided, the Prescribed Authority cannot pass
subsequent orders.
10.2. The Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3
further contended that recounting of ballot papers was
unjustified and contrary to established legal principles.
Recounting can be ordered only when the election
petition contains clear, specific and material
allegations supported by evidence, since the secrecy of
12
2022 SCC OnLine All 916
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 12 of 25
the ballot is sacrosanct; in the present case, the election
petition did not contain any allegation that votes were
illegally counted in favour of the respondent or that
invalid votes were included while declaring the result.
The recount was ordered merely on the basis of a
clerical discrepancy in recording of votes in Forms 45
and 46 relating to another candidate, which had no
material effect on the election result. Reliance is placed
on P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai
13
Mohindeen and Others to contend that recounting
cannot be ordered on vague or speculative grounds.
10.3. It was further contended that Section 12-C of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the relevant Rules
of 1994 do not confer power on the Prescribed
Authority to order recounting after declaration of
results. The statutory scheme only permits the
authority to set aside the election, declare it void, or
declare another candidate having been elected, but
does not provide recounting as an independent relief.
Moreover, the State Election Commission guidelines
permit recounting only during the counting process
before declaration of the result and not thereafter and
that too through an election petition. Hence,
13
AIR 1989 SC 640
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 13 of 25
Respondent No. 3 asserts that High Court correctly
allowed the writ petition, maintained the sanctity of the
electoral process, and therefore the present Appeal
deserves dismissal with costs.
11. Having heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the
parties and after perusal of the records, the following
question would arise for consideration:
I. Whether the Judgment of the High Court in the
Writ Petition call for interference?
V. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
12. The preliminary question that arose before the High Court
was whether the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the SDO,
being in the nature of a final order, rendered the SDO
functus officio , thereby precluding him from passing any
further order after the recounting was completed. This
question arose in the present matter because, after the
recounting was conducted, the Appellant herein emerged as
the returned candidate, and the SDO, vide order dated
17.03.2023, declared the Appellant as the successful
candidate of the election thus effectively passing yet another
final order in a case where a final order had already been
passed on 05.11.2022. The High Court was therefore
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 14 of 25
required to determine whether the order dated 05.11.2022
passed by the SDO was indeed a final order, or merely an
interim direction ordering recounting.
13.
For the purposes of adjudication, the scheme of Section 12-
C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 requires to
be examined as it has a direct bearing . It reads as follows:
“12C. Application for questioning the elections. -
(1) The election of a person as Pradhan or as
member of a Gram Panchayat shall not be
called in question except by an application
presented to such authority within such time
and in such manner as may be prescribed on
the ground that –
(a) the election has not been a free election by reason
that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue
influence has extensively prevailed at the election,
or
(b) that the result of the election has been materially
affected –
(i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of
any nomination; or
(ii) by gross failure to comply with the
provisions of this Act or the rules framed
thereunder.
(2) The following shall be deemed to be corrupt
practices of bribery or undue influence for the
purposes of this Act –
(A) Bribery, that is to say, any gift, offer or
promise by a candidate or by any other person
with the connivance of a candidate of any
gratification to any person whomsoever, with
the object, directly or indirectly of inducing –
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 15 of 25
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or
withdraw from being a candidate at any
election; or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at
an election; or as a reward to
i. a person for having so stood or not stood
or having withdrawn his candidature; or
ii. an elector for having voted or refrained
from voting.
(B) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or
indirect interference or attempt to interfere on
the part of a candidate or of any other person
with the connivance of the candidate with the
free exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions of this clause any
such person as is referred to therein who –
(i) threatens any candidate, or any elector,
or any person in whom a candidate or
any elector is interested, with injury of
any kind including social ostracism and
ex-communication or expulsion from
any cast or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a
candidate or an elector to believe that
he or any person in whom he is
interested will become or will be
rendered an object of divine
displeasure or spiritual censure, shall
be deemed to interfere with the free
exercise of the electoral right of such
candidate or elector within the
meaning of this clause.
(3) The application under sub-section (1) may be
presented by any candidate at the election or
any elector and shall contain such particulars
as may be prescribed.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 16 of 25
Explanation. - Any person, who filed a
nomination paper at the election whether such
nomination paper was accepted or rejected,
shall be deemed to be a candidate at the
election.
(4) The authority to whom the application under
sub-section (1) is made shall, in the matter of
–
i. hearing of the application and the procedure
to be followed at such hearing.
ii. setting aside the election, or declaring the
election to be void or declaring the
applicant to be duly elected or any other
relief that may be granted to the petitioner,
have such powers and authority as may be
prescribed.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the
powers to be prescribed under sub-section (4)
the rules may provide for summary hearing
and disposal of an application under sub-
section (1).
(6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the
prescribed authority upon an application under
sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from
the date of the order, apply to the District
Judge, for revision of such order on any one or
more of the following grounds, namely :-
(a) that the prescribed authority has exercised a
jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
(b) that the prescribed authority has failed to
execute a jurisdiction so vested;
(c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the
exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity.
(7) The District Judge may dispose of the
application for revision himself or may assign
it for disposal to any Additional District Judge,
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 17 of 25
Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge under
his administrative control and may recall it
from any such officer or transfer it to any other
such officer.
(8) The revising authority mentioned in sub-
section (7) shall follow such procedure as may
be prescribed, and may confirm, vary or
rescind the order of the prescribed authority or
remand the case to the prescribed authority for
re-hearing and pending its decision pass such
interim orders as may appear to it to be just and
convenient.
(9) The decision of the prescribed authority,
subject to any order passed by the revising
authority under this section, and every
decision of the revising authority passed under
the section, shall be final.]”
14. From a bare perusal of Section 12-C of the Act, it is clear
that an election to the post of Pradhan can be challenged
only by way of an application filed under Section 12-C (1)
before the Prescribed Authority, and such application is
thereafter to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thus,
it is evident from the provision that the Prescribed Authority
alone has the power to set aside the election result.
15. Once the Prescribed Authority passes an order granting final
relief, it is well settled in law that it ceases to have
jurisdiction to pass any further order in relation to the
election, as it would become functus officio in respect of the
matter adjudicated. This position is supported by the
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 18 of 25
judgment of this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed
14
Ahmad Ishaque and Ors . , which was rightly relied upon
by the High Court to set aside the order of the Prescribed
Authority dated 05.11.2022 and the subsequent orders.
16. The logic of the argument has been rightly and aptly
explained in the case of Parasuram vs. State of U.P. and
others (Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2021),
15
decided on 23.12.2022 , which is also referred to in the
impugned order is as follows:
“16. When the aforesaid constitutional provision is
seen in the context of the action impugned, it
emerges that the respondent No.6 had filed the
election petition for setting aside the election of the
petitioner. The Prescribed Authority, instead of
passing an order in terms of powers conferred
upon him in terms of sub-section (4) (ii) of Section
12-C of the Act, 1947, has passed-on the mantle,
after allowing the election petition, for re-counting
of votes. Once the election petition has itself been
decided the Prescribed Authority becomes
‘functus officio’ and even if after re-counting of
votes either the petitioner or the respondent No.6
herein receive more or less votes, the same would
be meaningless as the Authority who has carried
out the re-counting of votes would be powerless to
set aside the election of the petitioner or to declare
the respondent No.6 as elected considering that the
said power can only be flow out from the order
passed by an authority I an election petition, who
is no longer having the election petition before it,
14
AIR 1954 SC 233.
15
Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2021, by the High Court of
Allahabad.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 19 of 25
the same having been allowed and thus having
become ‘functus officio’. ”
We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid view.
From the above discussion, it is clear that once the
Prescribed Authority has passed an order in the nature of a
final order, it ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any further
order, having become functus officio .
17.
We now proceed to examine the nature of the order passed
in the present case, i.e., the order dated 05.11.2022. In order
to determine whether the said order is final or interim in
nature, it would be necessary to reproduce the order itself.
It reads:
JUDGMENT
………
ORDER
“The petition of Smt. Urmila Devi wife Dataram
resident Gadhiya Majra Parauli Suhagpur
Development Block Jaithra Tehsil Aliganj district
Etah is allowed and statement of defendant no.1
Mrs. Manoj Devi wife of Dinesh resident of Nagla
Dhammi Development Block Jaithra Tehsil
Aliganj district Etah is rejected. Re-counting of the
post of Gram Pradhan should be done in the three-
tier panchayat elections of Gram Panchayat
Parauli Suhagpur Development Block Jaithara
Tehsil Aliganj district Etah. Re-counting will be
held on 07.11.2022 at 10.00 am in the court room
of the undersigned. For Necessary arrangements
for recounting/ supervision, Shri Rakesh Kumar
Tehsildar Aliganj is nominated.”
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 20 of 25
18. Having reproduced the order of the Prescribed Authority,
we must now determine whether the said order is interim or
final in nature. In a recent judgment of this Hon’ble Court
16
in Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi and Ors . , a similar question
arose. In that case, which also arose from the State of Uttar
Pradesh and was governed by the same statutory provisions,
this Court held that an order directing recounting is in the
nature of an interim order. Accordingly, this Court set aside
the judgment of the High Court, which had erroneously held
such an order to be final in nature.
19. In order to understand the decision of this Court in Raj
Kumari v. Asha Devi and Ors. (supra) , it is necessary to
examine the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in that
case, i.e., the order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the Court of
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aonla Tehsil, District
Bareilly, in Case No. 3334 of 2021 titled Smt. Raj Kumari
v. Smt. Asha Devi , is reproduced hereinbelow:
DECISION
……..
ORDER
“Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion,
the election petition of the petitioner Rajkumari, is
partially accepted. The date 09.03.2024 is fixed for
recounting of the ballot papers. The recounting
proceedings will be conducted in Development
Block- Ramnagar, Tehsil Amla, District Bareilly.
16
SLP (C) No. 28467 of 2024. Hereinafter referred to as Raj Kumari.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 21 of 25
1. Assistant District Election Officer Panchayat,
Bareilly is directed that he must ensure to be
present at the fixed date and place at 10.00 A.M. at
the Development Block-Ramnagar, District
Bareilly for re-counting of all shield ballot papers
and other counting related forms of Village
Panchayat, Guleli, Development Block Ramnagar,
District Bareilly.
2. Development Block Officer Ramnagar should
constitute a counting team for counting the ballot
papers and ensure to inform the undersigned.
3. The Block Development Officer, Ramnagar is
also ordered to get the entire re-counting process
videographed.
4. For implementation of this order, a copy of this
order should be sent to Assistant District Election
Officer-Panchayat, Bareilly and Development
Block Officer, Ramnagar; Circle Officer /
Incharge Inspector, Aonla, District Bareilly;
District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bareilly and
Tehsildar, Aonla, Bareilly.
5. Circle Officer, Aonla, Bareilly and Inspector/
Incharge of Police Station Aonla, Bareilly should
deploy adequate police force to maintain peace
and order on the said date.”
When the aforesaid order was called in question before the
High Court, the High Court held that the order of the
Prescribed Authority was final in nature and, therefore, that the
Prescribed Authority had become functus officio and could not
pass any further order. This Court, upon analyzing both the
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 22 of 25
order of the Prescribed Authority and that of the High Court,
held as follows:
“5. Be that as it may, the High Court allowed the
writ petition on the ground that the first order
passed by the Prescribed Authority was for re-
counting and was in the nature of a final order and
once a final order has been passed, the Prescribed
Authority becomes ‘functus officio’ and it had no
authority to pass any other order and, therefore, the
second order based on which the re-counting was
done and the appellant had been declared elected,
has been set aside.
6. We totally disagree with the reasoning given by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court, for the
simple reason that the first order was in the nature
of an interim order, which was only for recounting
and it also fixed a date for re-counting i.e.
09.03.2024 and ordered that the results should be
apprised to the Prescribed Authority, which we
have already indicated above. The final order was
passed on 21.03.2024.
7. Consequently, we set aside the order of the High
Court. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated
21.03.2024 is restored. The concerned Authority
should give the charge of the Gram Pradhan to the
appellant herein forthwith.”
20. This Court, upon perusal of the order of the Prescribed
Authority, came to the conclusion that the order passed
therein was in the nature of an interim order. In contrast, a
bare perusal of the order of the Prescribed Authority in the
present case indicates that it is in the nature of a final order,
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 23 of 25
as it has completely allowed the application filed by the
Appellant herein and, therefore, leaves no scope for passing
any further order after the recounting is conducted, the
authority which passed the order had become functus
officio . However, despite passing the recounting order dated
05.11.2022, the Prescribed Authority, after the recounting
was completed, proceeded to pass yet another order dated
17.03.2023, wherein it accepted the report of the Tehsildar
and declared the Appellant, i.e., Urmila Devi, as the
returned candidate, thereby declaring her as elected to the
post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Parauli, Suhagpur.
21. Having become functus officio upon passing the order dated
05.11.2022, the Prescribed Authority could not have passed
any further order or continued the proceedings. The
difficulty arising from the passing of a final order and the
consequent cessation of jurisdiction is that, even after
recounting, the election officers who were appointed for the
purposes of conducting the election and had already
discharged their duties upon the declaration of the results
cannot reassume authority to declare the election results
afresh or set aside the earlier results. The power to set aside
election results vests exclusively with the Prescribed
Authority, and once it has become functus officio , such
power cannot be exercised thereafter.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 24 of 25
22. Therefore, in conclusion, the High Court has rightly allowed
the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 3, and the
impugned order does not warrant interference. Before
parting, we would like to reiterate the observations of the
High Court, which is as follows:
“14. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Prescribed
Authority, Aliganj, District Etah is directed to
remain cautious in future while dealing with
election petitions.”
23.
Appeal dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are
consigned to records.
...................................................J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
.....................................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
th
MAY 11 , 2026.
SLP (C) No.9638 of 2023 Page 25 of 25