Sangeeta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sangeeta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief: no recount of votes was directed and the Court did not dispose of the petitioner's pending representation. The petitioner was, however, left at liberty to take alternative/statutory recourse as provided under law for redressal of her grievance — the order having identified the election petition under Section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 as such recourse.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a recount of the votes of Booth Nos. 165, 166, 167, 168 and 169 of Panchayat-Bargaon, South of Sisai block, District-Gumla (and disposal of the petitioner's pending representation) is maintainable, given that the petitioner is said to have an efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an election petition under Section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the preliminary objection of the State Election Commissioner's counsel, and keeping in view that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 for redressal of her grievance as raised in the writ petition, this Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

On the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable (the petitioner having the statutory election-petition remedy noted above), the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No. 2709 of 2022 — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Order No. 06, dated 01.07.2024; Rajesh Shankar, J.). Petitioner Sangeeta Devi sought directions for a recount of the votes of Booth Nos. 165, 166, 167, 168 and 169 of Panchayat-Bargaon, South of Sisai block, District-Gumla, alleging that counting had been done against the principles of natural justice because the sister-in-law of respondent no. 6 (identified in the petition as Sushila Devi) was one of the counting officers and had influenced the counting in favour of respondent no. 6 (Shobha Devi); she further prayed for forthwith disposal of her representation pending before the concerned respondent. Counsel for the State Election Commissioner raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, submitting that the petitioner had an efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an election petition under Section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. Considering that objection, the Judge held he was not inclined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it as not maintainable, leaving the petitioner at liberty to take alternative/statutory recourse under law for redressal of her grievance. Single-judge order; no precedent cited; no monetary quantum involved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2709 of 2022

Sangeeta Devi … … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

The State Election Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla

The Circle Officer, Sisai, Gumla

Shobha Devi … … Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to GA-IV For State Election Commissioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Adv. Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate -----

Order No. 06

Dated: 01.07.2024

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to recount the votes of Booth Nos. 165, 166, 167, 168 and 169 of Panchayat-Bargaon, South of Sisai block, District-Gumla in view of the fact that counting has been done against the principles of natural justice, as the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 6 namely, Sushila Devi was one of the counting officers, who has influenced the counting in favour of the respondent no. 6 with further prayer to direct the concerned respondent to forthwith decide/dispose of the petitioner’s representation pending before it.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentState Election Commissioner, Jharkhand, raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring election petition under Section 151 of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 for redressal of her grievance.

3. Considering the said objection of learned counsel for the

State Election Commissioner and keeping in view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 151 of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 for redressal of her grievance as raised in the present writ petition, I am not inclined to entertain the same.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not

maintainable.

5. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take alternative/statutory recourse as provided under law for redressal her grievance.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Manish