Disposed¶36

Ashok Kumar Jigyasu v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Aug 2025CWJC/12981/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: withdrawal of writ petition; disposed with liberty; Prapatra-K / Format-'K' charge; State Election Commissioner Bihar order 05.06.2025; Case No. 41/2021 (Ranju Devi vs. Usha Devi); 10-year bar on election work; Returning Officer-cum-BDO Tarari, Bhojpur; Mukhiya election 2021 Gram Panchayat Raj Panwari; Section 135 proviso Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 2006; reservation eligibility of Usha Devi; allegation of tampering/partiality; no independent enquiry; Patna HC CWJC 12981/2025; Dr. Anshuman, J.; 21-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance and present all his contentions against the issuance of Prapatra-K before the appropriate authority/forum; writ petition otherwise disposed of as withdrawn after counsel sought permission to withdraw. ¶36

Ashok Kumar Jigyasu Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 05.06.2025 of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, so far as it prohibits the petitioner from participating in/conducting election work for the next 10 years and directs preparation of a charge in Format-'K' against him, should be quashed (certiorari) and respondents restrained from acting on it (mandamus).

¶25

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to raise his grievance and present all his contentions against the issuance of Prapatra-K before the appropriate authority/forum; the Court adjudicated no merits question on the impugned SEC order.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.), CWJC No. 12981 of 2025, decided 21-08-2025 (oral order). Ashok Kumar Jigyasu, at present Block Development Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan, East Darbhanga, and formerly Returning Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur, sought certiorari and mandamus against the order dated 05.06.2025 of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 41/2021 (Ranju Devi vs. Usha Devi), whereby he was barred from participating in/conducting all election work for the next 10 years and the District Magistrate, Bhojpur was directed to prepare a charge in Format-'K' on allegations of failing to discharge duties as Returning Officer impartially and honestly and tampering with records to benefit one party in the 2021 Mukhiya election of Gram Panchayat Raj Panwari, Anchal-Tarari; the petitioner contended no proper/independent enquiry preceded the order, and that the Commission had itself upheld the election by finding Usha Devi eligible for reservation benefits under the proviso to Section 135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to raise his grievance and present all contentions against the issuance of Prapatra-K before the appropriate authority/forum. No precedents were cited and no merits issue was decided.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12981 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ashok Kumar Jigyasu Son of Shri Mahendra Kumar, Resident of VillageGhataon, Ghatawan, Post Office- Fakhrabad, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua. At present posted and Working as Block Development Officer Kusheshwar Asthan, East Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

¶10

The Deputy Election Officer (Panchayat)-Cum-District Panchayat Raj Officer, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

¶11

The State Election Commission Panchayat, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel, Bihar Patna.

¶12

The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission Panchayat, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar, Patna.

¶13

The Secretary, the State Election Commission Panchayat, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel, Bihar, Patna.

¶14

The Deputy Secretary, the State Election Commission, Panchayat, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel, Bihar, Patna.

¶15

The Circle Officer, Tarari, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

¶16

The Circle Officer, Sahar, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

¶17

Smt. Ranju Devi, Wife of Dharmendra Ram, Resident of Village - Nonadih, Gram Panchayat Panwari, Block and Police Station- Tarari, DistrictBhojpur at Ara.

¶18

Smt. Usha Devi, Wife of Dadan Ram, Resident of village- Nonadih, Gram Panchayat Panwari, Block and Police Station - Tarari, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

¶19

... ... Respondent/s

¶20

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (17) For the State Election Comm. : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶21

2 21-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶22

counsel for the State and learned counsel for State Election Commission.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12981 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 2/6

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-

¶25

“I. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 41/2021 (Ranju Devi vs. Usha Devi), so far as it relates to an observation against the petitioner, whereby it has been observed that the then Returning Officer -cum-Block Development Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur, namely, Shri Ashok Kumar Jigyasu is being prohibited for participating/conducting in all election work for the next 10 years from the date of issuance of the order. Apart from this, the District Magistrate, Bhojpur is directed to immediately prepare a charge in Format -'K' on the proved allegations of not discharging the duties as Returning Officer impartially and honestly and tampering with the records to benefit one party and sent the same to his parent department and a copy of the same be made available to the Commission, without considering that the fact petitioner in his capacity of the then Returning Officer -cumthe Block Development Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur at Ara has discharged his duties with utmost diligence, honesty and integrity and so far as the observation that the petitioner

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.12981 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 3/6

¶27

tampered with the records so as to give benefit to one party is absolutely incorrect and is not based on any material facts and the records of the entire case reveal that no irregularity has been caused in the election of Mukhiya in Gram Panchayat Raj Panwari, Anchal - Tarari, District-Bhojpur at Ara in the year 2021, which is evident from the fact that the Commission itself in the order dated found 05.06.2025 has found that the elected candidate, namely, Usha Devi was eligible for reservation benefits as per the proviso to Section 135 of the Bihar Panchayt Raj Act, 2006, on the first date of scrutiny as it is an admitted fact that Smt. Usha Devi belongs to caste "Dusadh" Dhari, Dharahi (Scheduled Caste) and there is no dispute on her caste and thus rejected the claim of the applicant Ranju Devi and, therefore, when the election in which, the aforesaid Usha Devi was found to be a returned / selected candidate, has been held to be valid, no question of dishonesty or lack of integrity of the petitioner arise but the Commission has not considered these facts and has arbitrarily imposed such a punishment, which would cause huge loss to the petitioner so far his future prospects are concerned and thus the said order so far the observation /direction against the petitioner for debarring him for ten years for

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.12981 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 4/6

¶29

participating in any future election and for preparation of format -'K' against him is required to be quashed, as before passing such an arbitrary order against the petitioner, the proper enquiry has not been done in the matter.

¶30

II. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to not act in the light of such an arbitrary direction of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 41/2021 (Ranju Devi vs. Usha Devi), as the same would only discourage the officers like the petitioner, who have been discharging his duties honestly and with utmost diligence and integrity so that a fair and impartial election could take place and such an allegation that petitioner tampered with the records to benefit one party is arbitrary and not based on records and no independent enquiry has been done so as to ascertain the truthfulness of the said allegation as the election was between the candidates in which one of the candidates has been selected as Mukhiya but the petitioner being a Govt. Servant discharging his duties with utmost honesty and integrity and such an arbitrary direction of the State Election

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.12981 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 5/6

¶32

Commissioner, Bihar Patna in the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 41/2021 (Ranju Devi vs. Usha Devi), would only discourage the officers like the petitioner, who have been discharging his duties honestly and with utmost diligence and integrity so that a fair and impartial election could take place. III. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to not proceed to take any precipitate action against the petitioner in the light of the said order of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna as such an allegation of dishonesty, lack of integrity and tampering with the records to benefit one particular candidate is not based on any material facts and furthermore, as stated above, no independent enquiry has been done to ascertain these facts and such allegations are based only on conjecture and surmises. IV. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the petitioner will be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶33

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.12981 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 6/6

¶35

petition.

¶36

Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance and present all his contentions against the issuance of Prapatra - K before the appropriate authority/forum.

¶37

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶38

Divyansh/-

¶39

Ashok Kumar Jigyasu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Jigyasu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhtar Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Ikram Miya @ Md. Ikram Vs The State of Bihar

Sandeep Kumar Arya Vs The State of Bihar

Ravi Prakash Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Navratan Jha Vs The Chairman, Bihar Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg

Deshbandhu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar