Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Allowing Election Petition, Lacking Jurisdiction to Pass Subsequent Orders

The Appellant (Urmila Devi) and Respondent No. 3 (Manoj Devi) both contested the 2021 Gram Panchayat (Pradhan) Election in District Etah, UP. Respondent No. 3 was declared the winner by a margin of 2 votes

The Appellant filed an Election Petition under Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, alleging counting irregularities

On 05.11.2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO/Prescribed Authority) passed an order allowing the petition and directing a recount

Following the recount on 17.03.2023, the Appellant was declared the winner by 12 votes and subsequently took oath

The Allahabad High Court set aside the SDO’s order and the subsequent election result, holding that by "allowing" the petition in the initial order, the SDO became functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to declare a new result

1. Whether the judgment of the High Court setting aside the recount order and subsequent election results warrants interference

2. Whether the Prescribed Authority becomes functus officio after passing an order that "allows" an election petition while simultaneously ordering a recount

The Court applied Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which mandates that election disputes be resolved via a prescribed application and empowers the authority to set aside or declare an election void

the principle of functus officio—the doctrine that once an authority has performed its specific duty or passed a final order, its jurisdiction over the matter ceases

The Court cited Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233) regarding the termination of a tribunal's jurisdiction after a final decision

It further distinguished the present case from Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi (2024), which clarifies the distinction between "interim" orders for recounting and "final" orders that dispose of the petition

The Court examined the specific language of the SDO’s order dated 05.11.2022. It noted that the SDO stated the petition "is allowed" and the respondent's statement "is rejected" before directing the recount

The Court reasoned that by using language that "allowed" the petition in its entirety, the SDO passed a final order rather than an interim one

Under the principles established in Hari Vishnu Kamath and Parasuram v. State of U.P., once a final order is passed, the Prescribed Authority becomes functus officio and loses the legal capacity to pass subsequent orders, such as declaring the Appellant elected on 17.03.2023

The Court distinguished this from Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi, where the recounting order was clearly intermediate/interim

since the SDO had no jurisdiction to proceed after the finality of the first order, the subsequent recount and declaration of results were legally unsustainable

The Court held that the SDO's order dated 05.11.2022 was final in nature, rendering the authority functus officio and unable to pass the subsequent order of 17.03.2023 declaring the Appellant the winner

regardless of the recount outcome, the procedural lapse in jurisdiction invalidated the Appellant's election