Brijesh Kumar and Amarbir Singh, JJ.:— This Special Appeal rises from the order dated 25.9.1997, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P No. 2466 or 1997.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite parties raised objection to the maintainability of the special appeal as according to him this special appeal is not maintainable under High Court Rules and Orders under Chapter 8, Rule 5.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. Facts, in brief, are that an election of Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha Harha, Distt. Unnao was held on 7.4.1995 in which Smt. Madhuri Verma, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2466 of 1977 was declared elected against which the appellant filed an election petition before the Prescribed Authority i.e Sub-Divisional Officer, Unnao under Section 12-Ga of the Panchayat Raj Act. During pendency of the election petition the Prescribed Authority passed can order on 18.7.1996 for re-counting against which revision was filed by the petitioner, Smt. Madhuri Verma before the District Judge, Unnao. Subsequently, the result was declared and the present appellant was declared selected. Thereafter Smt. Madhuri Verma filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 16.9.1996 which is still pending. The petitioner, Smt. Madhuri Verma then moved an application in the said election petition before the Prescribed Authority praying therein that the said re-counting was not done properly. After considering the application the Prescribed Authority passed order on 1.1.1997 directing he Election Officer to produce the first election result sheet before him. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Unnao declared the result of re-counting vide order dated 26.8.1997 in which the appellant Smt. Rama Devi has been declared elected, whereafter the opposite party filed writ petition challenging the order dated 26.8.1997 as well as 1.1.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority and also against the order dated 26.7.1997 passed in revision by the Court of district judge maintaining the orders of recounting as well as the order dated 01.01.1997 The learned Single judge on interim relief application passed order dated 25.9.1997 staying operation of the order dated 26.8.1997 and 26.7.1997 against which present appeal has been filed.
5. We have perused the orders dated 26.7.1997 which encompass the entire controversy between the parties regarding various orders passed by the Prescribed Authority in the election petition, the order of re-counting which was challenged on the plea that Smt. Madhuri Verma, opposite party No. 1 had no notice of re-counting etc. as well as the order dated 1.1.1997 by which the Prescribed Authority had directed to summon the result sheet of the earlier election wherein the learned District Judge has clearly appreciated and discussed on merits the orders which were impugned by the opposite parties, the revisional order dated 26.7.1997 by which the Prescribed Authority had passed and directed recounting of the votes for the purposes of deciding controversy raised in the election petition. Admittedly, the controversy raised between the parties does not originate in the High Court and the opposite party No. 1 had challenged the decision of the revisional Court as well as of prescribed authority in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge had passed the interim order dated 25.9.1997 which is being challenged in this Special Appeal.
6. Chapter 8 Rule 5 of the High Court Rules provides as follows—
“5. Special Appeal.—An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendentce of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Utta Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect of any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such act of one judge.”
7. It is clear from the aforesaid rule that no special appeal is maintainable in the cases where the controversy does not originate before the High Court. The rule admittedly is based on a logic that the Prescribed Authority or the revisional authority which act as tribunal/court having already appreciated the matter from judicial angle and in order to get finality the decision of the single Judge should be taken as final and no appeal should further be maintainable. This Court has taken similar view in Sita Ram Lal v. D.I.O.S Azamgarh,,1 wherein the main object of Chapter. 8, Rule V has been duly discussed.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, as already indicated above, sufficiently shows that the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority was challenged before the revisional Court and orders of the revisional Court, along with the order of Prescribed Authority has been challenged in this Court before the Single Judge and, thus the controversy accordingly cannot be deemed to have originated in the High Court and thereby provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 are attracted and in the case this Special Appeal is not maintainable.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the writ petition filed by the opposite party is not maintainable. Such objection, if any can be taken by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge as the writ petition is still pending.
10. In the light of the observations, made above, this appeal being not maintainable in view of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Court Rules, the same is dismissed.
11. Appeal Dismissed.