Dismissed

Ram Uttam Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Apr 2011CWJC/5649/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ application challenging the bifurcation of the Dakhram Gram Panchayat and its amalgamation with Sajjanpur Panchayat. The court held that since the creation of Benipur Nagar Parishad had been stayed by an interim order in a related LPA, there was no ground to interfere to set aside the merger. The court found the electorate had adequate opportunities to exercise franch

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed; no interference was granted regarding the merger of constituencies.

Ram Uttam Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Election Law | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5649 of 2011 RAM UTTAM YADAV . Versus

¶2

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .

¶3

¶4

For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajni Kant Pathak, Adv. For the State Election Commission:- Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, AC to G.P. 15.

¶5

¶6

04.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner for the State and for the State Election Commission.

¶7

The petitioner is stated to be the Mukhiya of the Dakhram Gram Panchayat at Darbhanga.

¶8

Learned counsel submits that it is one of

¶9

the 22 Gram Panchayats which were amalgamated for creation of the Benipur Nagar Parishad. A part of the Dakhram Gram Panchayat however was left out consisting of a population of at least 1393 and which is the bone of contention in the present writ application. It is submitted that the creation of the Benipur Nagar Parishad by amalgamation of the Panchayats was itself not in accordance with law

¶10

and therefore the bifurcation of the Dakhram Gram Panchayat excluding 1393 persons was itself not in accordance with law. There had been no proper notifications under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules with regard to the territorial constituencies by publication in accordance with Rule-8. It is next

¶11

¶12

submitted that Sajjanpur Gram Panchayat with which this 1393 population of Dakhram Gram Panchayat has been amalgamated is a reserved constituency which may affect the electoral prospect of a person from the Dakhram Gram Panchayat.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State Election Commission from its order dated 10.2.2011 submits that the authorities keeping in mind the interest of this 1393 population of Dakhram Gram Panchayat decided to merge it with the Sajjanpur Gram Panchayat for reasons of convenience of the electorate as discussed in the order for geographical

¶14

reasons.

¶15

It is not the case of the petitioner that none of these 1393 electorate belonged to the reserved category and are therefore ineligible to participate in the Panchayat elections through the Sajjanpur Panchayat. In any event of the matter, whether the bifurcation of the Dakhram Gram Panchayat or any other Panchayat for creation of the Benipur Gram Panchayat was in accordance with law having its fall out on the present Dakhram Panchayat and its amalgamation with Sajjanpur etc. are matters clearly beyond the purview of this Court in view of the interim order passed in L.P.A. No.

¶16

¶17

1797 of 2010, staying the operation of the order in C.W.J.C. No. 1297 of 2010. Suffice it to notice that in the writ petition, the creation of the Benipur Nagar Parishad had been set aside. The status of the Benipur Nagar Parishad having been revived under the interim order of the Appellate Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ application. The Court is satisfied that by the impugned order of the State Election Commission the electorate at large of the Dakhram Gram Panchayat amalgamated with Sajjanpur has been

¶18

given adequate and equal opportunity not only to contest Panchayat Elections, if so advised, but also to exercise their right of franchise with which the Court is not inclined to interfere at the behest of an individual whose own political prospect may get jeopardized in the process.

¶19

The writ application stands dismissed.

¶20

P. Kumar

¶21

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Ram Uttam Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Uttam Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Shahnawaj Alam and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rina Narayan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kamala Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Om Prakash Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bindi Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Saifullah Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.