Dismissed

Mahendra Narayan Das v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Dec 2014CWJC/18701/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the District Magistrate regarding voting assistance in internal Panchayat elections. The court relied on a prior Bench decision to hold that Rule 63 does not apply to internal elections and found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition questioning the District Magistrate's order was dismissed.

Mahendra Narayan Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Election Law | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18701 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== 1. Mahendra Narayan Das Son of Late Yogeshwar Das Resident of Village - Bhawanipur, P.O. - Gawalpada, P.S. - Chhatapur, District - Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The District Magistrate, Supaul-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Supaul, District - Supaul. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, District- Supaul. 6. The Block Development Officer, Chhatapur-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Chhatapur, P.O. and P.S. Chhatapur, DistrictSupaul. 7. Sri Jahur Alam Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Presently Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Chhatapur, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatapur, DistrictSupaul. 8. The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the Secretary. 9. The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. U.S.S. Singh, GP1 For the Respondent-S.E.C.: Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Girish Pandey, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 01-12-2014 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the State Election Commission are present.

¶4

Although the matter is listed under the heading ‘For Orders

¶5

on Petition’ but considering the nature of grievance raised the writ

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.18701 of 2014 (2) dt.01-12-2014

¶7

2 / 3

¶8

petition itself has been taken up with a view to its final disposal with the consent of the parties.

¶9

The petitioner has questioned the order passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul in a matter arising from Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014 whereby on objections to the two votes cast by two voters taking assistance of the same person, the District Magistrate has sought guideline from the State Election Commission and which has since been provided under letter dated 22.10.2014 placed at Annexure-5 to the I.A. No. 8352 of 2014.

¶10

The grievance of the petitioner is that in absence of any provision under the Act or the rules framed thereunder on the issue of manner of voting in the election of Pramukh and in view of the provisions underlying Rule 63 of the Bihar State Election Rules putting a bar on the assistance provided by the same person to more than one voter, the decision of the State Election Commission is not sustainable.

¶11

Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam has referred to a Bench decision of

¶12

this Court reported in 2009(2) PLJR 251 (Hari Madho Sah Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and with reference to paragraph 7 of the judgment it has been fairly conceded that the provisions of Rule 63 do not relate to internal elections.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.18701 of 2014 (2) dt.01-12-2014

¶15

3 / 3

¶16

consideration the opinion expressed in paragraph 7 of the judgment passed in the case of Hari Madho Sah (supra) and in view of the stipulations provided under paragraph 8 of the guideline issued by the State Election Commission dated 3.6.2009 published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 31.8.2010 as well as the guideline issued by the State Election Commission bearing Letter No. 6685 dated 28.5.2011, the relevant provision whereof finds quoted in the letter of the State Election Commission placed at Annexure-5 of the interlocutory application, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶19

Bibhash/-

¶20

Mahendra Narayan Das v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Narayan Das 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umakant Malakar @ Umakant Bhagat @ Umesh Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Ayodhya Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Radha Krishna Enterprises Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Baidyanath Thakur Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/s Jai Maa Kali Timber and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Prakash Singh @ Prakash Singh Chauhan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.