Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J.1. Two writ petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order of the State Election Commission (for short 'the Commission') dated 11-4-2001, issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Commission addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Nawadah, cancelling the electrion of all the office bearers of the Narhat Gram Panchayat and directing to take steps for fresh election, and for quashing the consequential order dated 12-4-2001 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, (Panchayat), Nawadah, addressed to the Election Officer, Narhat Prakhand informing about the aforesaid order dated 11-4-2001 of the Commission and also for quashing the decision of the Commission dated 23-7-2001, issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Commission giving direction for holding a fresh election of the different posts of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. Copies of the said directions/orders have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.B. Sinha, J.1.This application is directed against an order dated 26-2-1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been declared unfit to discharge his functions Up-Mukhiya purported to be in terms of the provisions of Section 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The fact of the matter lies in very narrow compass.The petitioner joined Central Co-operative Bank as a Peon and has been working in that capacity since then.3. The Mukhiya of Karyanna Bindidih Gram Panchayat was removed whereafter the petitioner was elected to the post Executive member of the Panchayat and later on elected to the post of Up-Mukhiya. The petitioner was asked to perform the duties of the Mukhiya by an order dated 11-11-1992 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application.4. However, as noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned order, the District Magistrate had found that he cannot function as a Mukhiya in view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. Three of the sixteen F.I.R. named accused of Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 58 of 2006, G.R. No. 406 of 2006 have filed this application for quashing of order dated 13.12.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi, whereby he has taken cognizance against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. including these petitioners against whom investigation is still pending whereas charge sheet has been submitted against the remaining others.2. The aforesaid case was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. and other allied sections of the Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act to which Section 302 I.P.C. was added by order dated 5.8.2006, on the basis of a written report submitted by one Pravin Kumar Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 at 9.45 P.M. on 4.8.2006 inter alia alleging that earlier that night at about 9 P.M. all the sixteen F.I.R. named accused including the petitioners along with 5-7 unknown others variously armed with dead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for the State Election commission and learned counsel for private respondent No. 6.2. This writ petition has been filled for quashing order dated 13.09.2006 (Annexure 1) passed by the State Election Commission, Bihar, allowing Case No. 43 of 2006 filed by respondent No. 6, namely, Mahendra Sharma and declaring the election of the petitioner on the post of Member, Zila Parishad, Begusarai, Area No. 26 as illegal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the age of the petitioner is 22 years, which was clearly mentioned in the nomination paper and affidavit filed by the petitioner on 22.03.2006 before the authorities concerned for contesting the election of Member of Zila Parishad, Begusarai, Area No. 26. He also stated that on 02.06.2006 the election was held and result was declared, in which the petitioner was declared successful and much thereafter on 10.08...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 7.1.2003 of the Panchayat Samiti, Tarari whereby motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner.2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner happens to be the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Tarari. A requisition to convene the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion was given to her. For one or the other reasons, she did not convene the special meeting and thereafter 13 members decided to call the meeting on 31.12.2002 and requested the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti to issue notice. In compliance of the said order, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti sent notice dated 1.1 2003 intimating to the members that 7.1.2003 is the date fixed for holding the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner The meeting as directed was held and no confidence motion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Bihar State Election Commission and learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.3.2009 passed, in Case No. 02 of 2009, by the State Election Commissioner, by which he has declared the petitioner disqualified as Councillor in terms of Section 18(1)(g) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and for further consequential reliefs.3. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The petitioner was elected as Ward Councillor for the Patna Municipal Corporation in the elections of the year 2007. Prior to the said election, the petitioner was made an accused in Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 441 dated 14.12.2005 under Section 25(1-B)/26 of the Arms Act. Subsequently by the judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed in Trial No. 1898 of 2008 by. the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City, Patna, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous impri...
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
S.N. Jha, J.1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are aggrieved by the constitution of Jamsoti and Chalkusa Gram Panchayat in the district of Hazaribagh and Daludih-Maheshpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Dhanbad respectively. The ground urged is that in terms of the Proviso to Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, it is mandatory for the District Magistrate to consult the Panchayats concerned before effecting any change in the geographical limits of the existing Panchayat formed under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which continues to be legal entity under Section 157(f) of the 1993 Act till the first sitting of the Panchayat under the new Act. The crux of the dispute involves inclusion, exclusion of certain villages or bifurcation of the existing Panchayat. Counsel for the parties in course of hearing also referred to the factual aspects. In support of the contention that consultation with the Panchayat concerned is mandatory, reliance was placed on the d...
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
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a convenor of certain social, cultural and literary organisation of Santhal Paraganas and Chotonagpur divisions, has claimed a declaration that the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (in short the Act) is not applicable to the Scheduled Areas in the State of Bihar, and consequently to restrain the State Election Commission and the State of Bihar from holding any election under the Act in that area.2. Field of controversy is quite small but arguments some what extensive. Part IX of the constitution deals with the Scheduled and Tribal Areas. Under Article 244 falling in that part the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution shall apply to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State, the State of Bihar being one of such States. If we now refer to the Fifth Schedule, Part C thereof defines the 'Scheduled Areas'. The expression 'Scheduled Areas' me...
Tag this Judgment!