HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.166 of 2010 (M/S) Atul Kumar Gupta Additional District Magistrate Uttarkashi … Petitioner Versus Election Tribunal / Addl. District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar & others …. Respondents AND Writ Petition No.112 of 2010 (M/S) Atul Kumar Gupta Additional District Magistrate Uttarkashi … Petitioner Versus Election Tribunal / Addl. District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar & others …. Respondents Dated:- 04th January, 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. U. K. Uniyal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Dharam Singh was elected as the Zila Panchayat Member from Sarpura Constituency under Block Khatima. Ravindra Singh respondent no.2 filed an election petition in which the petitioner Atul Kumar Gupta was arrayed as respondent no.18. The petitioner Atul Kumar Gupta filed his objection to the election petition stating that he was the Returning Officer for the post of Member, Zila Panchayat and that he had nothing to do with the election petition of Block Khatima in which Dharam Singh was elected as the Member of Zila Panchayat and that he has wrongly been arrayed as a party, consequently, moved two applications, one under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint and another under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for the deletion of his name. The application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. was rejected by an order dated 17.11.2009 and the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was rejected by an order dated 09.04.2009 against which a review application was filed which was also rejected by an order dated 08.01.2010. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, have filed two separate writ petitions. During the pendency of the writ petition, one of the issue with regard to misjoinder of necessary parties was decided by the Election Tribunal by an order dated 03.03.2010. The Election Tribunal held that the petitioner, who was arrayed as respondent no.18 in the election petition, was wrongly arrayed as a party and, consequently, directed to delete his name from the array of the parties. It has been stated at the Bar that pursuant to the order of the Election Tribunal dated 03.03.2010, the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the array of the parties. In the light of the aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served in considering the validity and legality of the order passed by the Election Tribunal passed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. since the relief has already been given to the petitioner by deleting his name from the array of parties. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that certain observations had been made by the Election Tribunal in the impugned orders, which will have an adverse bearing in the career of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out an observation made by the Tribunal while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., namely, “the election officials and in particular respondent no.18 colluded with respondent no.1 in order to cause the loss to the petitioner”. The court finds that since the petitioner was not involved in the election petition and 3 his name has been deleted from the array of the parties, the question of his colluding with other officials does not arise. Consequently, this court while disposing of the writ petition directs that any observations made against the petitioner in the orders dated 09.04.2009, 08.01.2010 and 17.11.2010 will not come in the way of the petitioner in so far his career is concerned. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 04.01.2011 LSR