Dismissed

Shahood Alam v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Feb 2015CWJC/1710/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the State Election Commission's order dismissing his election challenge regarding the Zila Parishad election. The Court held that dissolving the proposer's constituency post-election does not disqualify the returned candidate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the order of the Election Commission is maintained.

Shahood Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Election Law | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1710 of 2014 =========================================================== Shahood Alam, son of Md. Moinuddin, resident of Village- Chakbaro, Post Office Paharpur, Police Station- Bakhtiarpur, District Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 6. The Collector, Saharsa. 7. The State Election Commission through its Secretary, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. 8. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. 9. Ritesh Ranjan, son of Shri R.P. Ranjan, resident of Simri Bakhtiarpur Tola Ranginia, Post Office- Simri Bakhtiarpur, Police Station- Bakhtiarpur, District- Saharsa. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, GP-21 For State Election Commission : Mr. Girish Pandey =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-02-2015

¶3

None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Girish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission and the counsel for the State are present.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶5

The petitioner has questioned the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the State Election Commission in Case No.19

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.1710 of 2014 dt.23-02-2015

¶7

¶8

of 2013, whereby the election case has been dismissed.

¶9

The facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner along with the private respondent contested the election of the Zila Parishad, Saharsa and whereas the petitioner lost the election, the private respondent succeeded therein. The election of the private respondent was questioned by the petitioner before the Election Commission, inter alia on grounds that the proposer of the private respondent who was a voter from the Bakhtiyarpur South Gram Panchayat which formed part of Zila Parishad now stands dissolved and along with the Gram Panchayat of Simri Bakhtiyarpur North now forms part of the Nagar Panchayat. The issue raised by the petitioner has been decided against him by the Election Commission relying upon the provisions of rule 39 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) to hold that even if the constituency from where the proposer was a voter would now form part of the Nagar Panchyat yet it would not effect the election of the returned candidate. Such opinion the Election Commission has been questioned before this Court.

¶10

Whereas section 135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) prescribes that every persons who choses to contest an election should be a voter of the

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.1710 of 2014 dt.23-02-2015

¶12

¶13

Panchayat Constituency concerned and rule 39 of ‘the Rules’ provides a similar stipulation for the proposer as well but it is only where a returned candidate incurs disqualification that he can be disqualified under section 136 of ‘the Act’. There is no such provision either in ‘the Act’ or in ‘the Rules’ which mandates that even if the proposer would incur any form of disqualification including his name being removed from the voter list of the Panchayat concerned, this would be sufficient reason to disqualify a returned candidate.

¶14

In the present case it is not in dispute that when the election was held the proposer of the respondent no.9 namely Brahmdeo Bhagat was voter of the Panchayat Constituency and it is almost one year after the election held on 27.5.2011 that the constituency of the proposer was dissolved to form a Nagar Panchayat. It is taking note of the statutory provisions that the Election Commission has held that mere transformation of the constituency of the proposer would not affect the election of the returned candidate and in my opinion also unless the returned candidate would incur such disqualification where his own constituency gets dissolved or gets altered in the manner prescribed under section 151 of ‘the Act’, any subsequent development where the constituency of the proposer has been dissolved would not be

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.1710 of 2014 dt.23-02-2015

¶16

¶17

sufficient to disqualify his election more particularly where the proposer was a voter of the said constituency on the date on which the election was held i.e. 27.5.2011.

¶18

That the Panchayat Constituency of the proposer of the respondent no.9 was in existence and had not been dissolved is manifest from the statement of the petitioner himself made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition in which he admits that the panchayat election for Bakhtiarpur (North) and (South) were also held on 27.5.2011 which is the date on which the election of the Zila Parishad was held.

¶19

In the opinion of this Court the order of the Election Commission is in tune with the statutory provisions and does not require any interference. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶21

SKPathak/-

¶22

Shahood Alam v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahood Alam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mainejar Prasad Kushwaha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Kumar Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uday Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raghavendra Narayan Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satyendra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.