Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In all the five writ petitions the common question which arises is whether the Member, Board of Revenue can hear an appeal filed under Section 18(6) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. 2006 in four cases and Section 70(5) of the said Act in CWJC No. 5814/2008 after coming into force of the Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2007 with effect from 4.2.2008, by which the powers of the Commissioner to direct such removal have become vested in the State Government and the provisions regarding the appeal from the order of the Commissioner have been deleted.3. In four of the writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that after their removal from the post of Mukhiya by various orders and in the fifth case after removal as Adhakshya of Zila Parishad by the order of the Commissioner, they had preferred appeals before the Member, Board of Revenue but in the said appeals either orders have been passed that the Member, Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Election Commission.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.08.2006, by which the State Election Commissioner allowed Case No. 28 of 2006 filed by Kiran Kumari (respondent No. 7), holding that the date of birth of Rekha Kumari (petitioner) was 16.11.1985 and hence she having not completed 21 years of age, was neither eligible at the time of filing nomination paper for the post of Member of Goitha Panchayat on 09.03.2006, nor was she eligible at the time of filing nomination paper for the post of Pramukh of Banke Bazar Panchayat Samiti on 28.06.2006 and consequently after setting aside the elections of the petitioner directed the aforesaid posts to be vacant.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the programme for elections having been declared and nominations from the members having been invited by the Bihar State Elec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a declaration that he may he allowed to continue as a member of the Block Panchayat Samiti as well as a member of the Zila Parishad at the same time after his election to the said posts and the direction issued by the State Election Commission in exercise of the power under Rule 121 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), as contained in Memo No. 4563 dated 24-5-2001 in Clause (da) providing that if one candidate has been elected for more than one post in the Panchayat Election then, he will be administered oath on all the elected posts but within fifteen days of taking oath the candidate has to express his willingness to continue on one post in writing to the concerned authority and, thereafter, his election to other posts shall stand cancelled, is invalid as the same is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 139(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. This is a matter which deals with criminals in politics at the grassroot level. The State Government had been directed by the Court to place a list of Mukhiyas who may have been convicted of an offence, or for that matter, were inherently disqualified under law so as not to be the members of Panchayats, information being given to the Court is coming slowly. This aspect the Court will leave for later.2. Sooner or later the question will arise that if there be information, as a fact, that certain members of Panchayats have indeed been convicted, then, what is to be done. Plainly, this is a matter where a member of a Panchayat may be disqualified for being part of it. Does the Constitution of India give any guidance on such situations? It does. As amended, Part IX, the Chapter. The Panchayat, Article 243F does mention disqualification for membership. This Article also casts an obligation on the State Government that the law must provide for taking care of such situations. The next que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.3.2004 passed by the State Election Commission in Case No. 7 of 2004 disqualifying the petitioner to hold the post of member of the Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass.3. While the petitioner was an Assistant Government Pleader, he contested the election and got elected as the Member of Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa. Respondent No. 7 herein filed a petition before the State Election Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission under Rule 122 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules stating therein that the petitioner, being an Assistant Government pleader in Hilsa Sub-Division of the District of Nalanda, is disqualified to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti, in view of Section 139(1) (c) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Commission noticed the petitioner and on consideration of the plea advanced on his behalf as also re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent-authorities as well as learned Counsel for the private respondent No. 6.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for declaring the election of respondent No. 6 Meena Devi for the post of the member of Kurma Panchayat Samiti, territorial Constituency No. 13 as well as her election for the post of Pramukh of Kahalgaon block in the district of Bhagalpur as void and also for quashing the result of the meeting dated 23.6.2006 electing her as the Pramukh and for further directions that when the post of Pramukh was reserved for the female belonging to backward class, no other persons from any other class or caste is entitled to contest the same.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Pramukh was reserved for extremely backward class but respondent No. 6 was Chandel Chhatri, namely Kurmi, by caste as her father belonged to that cast, but she had produced a certi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and seek the same relief(s) on behalf of the respective petitioners. These cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in all the five writ petitions are wholesale kerosene dealers. They hold dealerships from different petrol companies and carry on their business on the basis of wholesale kerosene dealer's licences issued under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order). They are aggrieved by the direction for cancellation of their licences issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Food, Supplies and Commerce, Government of Bihar under his circular letter No. 3281, dated 6-8-2002 (Annexure-8 in C. W.J.C. 9944 of 2002). It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the direction issued by the Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Commerce is illegal and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J.1. The two petitioners, who were duly elected as Pramukh and Up-pramukh, respectively, of Minapur Panchayat Samiti, have filed the present writ application for quashing the resolution dated 4-9-2001 (Annexure 4) taken in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti in question, whereby no confidence motion has been passed against them by 21 votes.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that on 19-6-2001, an election was held, in which petitioner No. 1 Chandeshwar Prasad was elected as Pramukh and petitioner No. 2 Krishnadeo Prasad was elected as Up-pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti. They took charge of the aforesaid posts and started functioning thereon. It is to be stated that up-till now there is no devolution of power and function to the Panchayat Samitis. respondent No. 5, namely, Suresh Rai, a member of the said Panchayat Samiti, was the candidate for the post of Pramukh and was defeated. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 5 wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. In these writ applications, the vires of Rule 122, as amended by notification dated 28.2.2002, has been challenged primarily on the ground that the same is ultra vires Article 243O of the Constitution of India and Sections 140 and 143 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They have also challenged the orders passed by the State Election Commission in exercise of the said power disqualifying the office bearers of the Panchayat as well as the orders by which the State Election Commission has rejected the prayer in some cases to disqualify the candidates on merit. In some cases, the elected members have incurred disqualification after election and the State Election Commission has also passed orders declaring them disqualified under the aforesaid Rule, read with Section 139(2) of the Act.2. To appreciate the point, it is first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Act, at the very beginning....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR2009Pat127,2009(57)BLJR2529
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.I.A. No. 1083 of 2009 1. The interlocutory application has been filed for addition of prayer to declare the election of respondent No. 5 as Pramukh of Sangrampur Panchayat Samiti null and void and further to declare the petitioner as elected Pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti.2. The writ application was initially filed for quashing of the order dated 3.8.2006 passed by the State Election Commissioner by which he has held that the Commission was not competent to interfere once the results of the election to the post of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is declared and any such matter can be considered by filing an election petition before the Sub Judge. As per the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner no such election petition being maintainable before the Subordinate Judge and no mechanism for redressal of election dispute relating to Pramukh and Up-Pramukh having been prescribed under Section 40(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 by the State Election Commi...
Tag this Judgment!