B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) Proceedings were initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gaon Sabha Registration of Electors Order, 1978, (for short the order) against the entry of the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll of village Raipur, Block Siswa Bazar, Tahsil Nichlaul district Maharajganj (Gorakhpur).
(2.) It appears Lallan respondent No. 2 filed an objection under Paragraph 1 of the Order against the entry of the name of the petitioner. The basis of the objection was that the name of the petitioner also finds place in the electoral roll of Town Area, Siswa Bazar and hence his name could not be entered in the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Raipur. But, that objection was time barred in view of the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Order. The objection should have been filed within 15 days and no application appears to have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the said objection. Without holding detailed enquiry, the matter appears to have been decided on the report of the Lekhpal dated 3rd June, 1988 and the reports of the Supervisor Qanungo and the Tahsildar dated 13th June, 1988 to the effect that the objection was time barred. The Electoral Registration Officer also rejected the objection of respondent No. 2 holding it to be time barred vide Annexure-4. Against that order respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal presumably under Paragraph 25 of the order and that appeal has been allowed by the impugned order dated 29th January, 1990, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Gorakhpur, and the matter has been remanded. Against this order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the impugned order be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(3.) Shri P. S. Pandey, Learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that under Paragraph 25 of the Order, appeal could be preferred only against the orders passed under Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 24 of the order to the District Magistrate. Since the objection of respondent No. 2 was rejected under Paragraph 15 of the Order, hence no appeal was maintainable.;