Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for Respondent No. 8, the State Election Commission and the State of Bihar.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2006 passed in case No. 20/06 by the State Election Commission, has approached this Court for quashing the same.3. The stand of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 8 being a dismissed employee of the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited was disqualified from contesting the election to the post of member of Zila Parishad from Nardiganj-II in the district of Nawadah from which he was subsequently elected. In this regard learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provision of Section 136(1)(f) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 which is quoted below:136. Disqualification for Membership - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as Mukhiya, member of the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch, Panch ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. All the writ applications raise the common issue pertaining to the power of the State Election Commission to cancel the election of Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti in a special meeting convened by the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that the State Election Commission was not informed about the vacancy and no direction sought from it for proceeding to fill up the vacancy by holding election for the said post and accordingly they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases lie within a narrow compass.3. In all the writ petitions the offices of the Pramukh and/or Up-Pramukh became vacant due to the resignation of the said office bearers or their removal from the said office by motion of No Confidence. After the vacancies arose it is alleged that a notice in Form 24 was issued by the respondent Sub Divisional Officer under Rule 87 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules convening a meeting of the Pan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.6. The petitioner in effect prays for unseating respondent no.6 and for issuance of certificate of being elected as Mukhiya in her favour. The petitioner along with respondent no.6 and others contested election for the post of Mukhiya of Agion Gram Panchayat held in the year 2011. On 18.5.2011, the counting of the result of Agion Gram Panchayat concluded and the Returning Officer issued details of election result under rule 81(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules’). As per the details of votes secured by the candidate mentioned in declaration form prepared under rule 81(1) of the Rules, the petitioner polled 638 votes, whereas Dhanamuni Devi secured 637 votes. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequently another declaration under Rule 81(1) of 2006 Rules wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 30.8.2011 passed by the State Election Commission, Patna in Case No.31 of 2011, disqualifying him to hold the post of Mukhiya of Hardaspur Diara Gram Panchayat, as he was under age on the date of filing of nomination on 23.3.2011. 2. The prayer is founded on the following grounds: (i) The State Election Commission cannot decide the question of disqualification of a member of Panchayat incurred before election after conclusion of the electoral process (ii) The State Election commission is not competent to decide the contested question of fact which requires evidence and is best left to be tried by the Election Tribunal. 3. Before we examine the issues involved in this case, the brief facts of the case are being indicated. The petitioner filed his nomination paper on 23.3.2011 for election to the post of Mukhiya of Hardaspur Gram Panchyat within Bakhtiarpur Block. The date of birth mentioned in the nomination paper as well as in affida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. Initially when the writ application was filed by the petitioner he was erstwhile Mukhiya of Jajuar village in the district of Muzaffarpur. The challenge was to the notice issued by the Director, Panchayat Raj under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. But during the pendency of the writ application a final order removing the petitioner from the post has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, which is dated 18.3.2009 and is also now under challenge by way of I.A. No. 1812 of 2009. The impugned order, therefore, is annexure-5.2. Section 18(5) of the act states as under:Without prejudice to the provisions under this Act, if, in opinion of the Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction over the Gram Panchayat, a Mukhiya or an Up-Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings or willfully omits or refuses to perform his duties and functions und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. Petitioner is the Headmaster of Nationalized Middle School, Hisua, Nawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the School') and has been placed under suspension under orders of the District Magistrate, Nawada bearing Memo No. 3116 dated 27.12.2007, Annexure-1 which has been assailed by filing this writ application on the ground that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned suspension order as Block Level Committee constituted in terms of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') as vested with disciplinary control over the petitioner and other teacher of the school and the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction in the matter at all. In support of such submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 17 of the Rules which empowers the committee constituted under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the requisition for convening the special meeting dated 22-5-2003, Annexure 4, and also letter No. 57 dated 1 -6-2003 issued by the respondent No. 3 convening the special meeting of Aurangabad Zila Parishad, Annexure 9. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was elected Chairman and petitioner No. 2 was elected Vice-Chairman of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad on 10-6-2001. Since then they have been working as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Zila Parishad. On 22-11-2001 some members of the Zila Parishad filed a petition expressing no confidence in the petitioners and requested for convening the special meeting. The special meeting was convened on 6-12-2001 and after voting the no confidence motion failed. On 22-5-2003 sixteen members of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad filed a petition before the petitioner Nos. 1 stating reasons for expressing no confidence in the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the petitioners, and requested to convene the special meeting, An...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner who was declared as returned candidate, was candemned in the election petition as a law breaker and a person who committed misconduct during the course of counting of votes. The election petition filed by the present Respondent No. 4 was basically based upon the material pleading that there were some bunglings in counting of the votes, some votes which were cast in favour of the election petitioner were mixed in the lots of the returned candidate and despite his application for recount the Returning Officer, for the reasons best known to him, did not order for recount. The present petitioner/returned candidate contested the election petition on all possible grounds and inter alia pleaded that there were no illegalities in counting votes and as the application for recount of the vote did not provide any substance or material to persuade the Returning Officer for recount, the application was rightly not considered.2. As the parties joined sales, certain is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. 1. This issue raises an important point on what actually should be the content of local self Government with civic functions. What is urbanisation about? Is it not a civic function with local self Government? It is local Government by the people, for the people and of the people. The attack in the present petition is on the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981.2. As long as 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution had not arrived, the encouragement to even debate such issues was not available. Not a single argument has been advanced to resist the proposition that the content of the development authority within the area of a municipality has to with elected representatives. If the Government is local Government in its content then why should peoples representatives be eliminated in participating in municipal Government.3. Circumstances of the set up which has been structured in Bihar (and Uttar Pradesh) will be better understood in its back ground. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. In a writ petition the respondent-petitioner complained before this Court that the seat of Makhiya of a particular Panchayat was reserved for extremely backward class community, and the same is being occupied by a person, who does not belong to the said community, and the Election Commission failed to even address itself to a complaint made by the petitioner to the effect. By the judgment and Order under appeal the writ petition was allowed with a direction upon the Commission to decide the merits of the said 66mplaint. While the appeal was preferred; by' the Commission against the judgment and order under appeal, the Commission applied its mind to the complaint lodged by the petitioner-respondent and concluded, ultimately, that the person elected does not belong to the Community for which the post in question was reserved. On such conclusion, Commission declared the election invalid. Subsequent thereto, the person, whose election was, thus, declared invalid, preferred a separate a...
Tag this Judgment!