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
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
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
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
M.L. Visa, J. 1. This is an order on the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 raising preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of election petition and reply thereto filed by the election petitioner. 2. The case of respondent No. 1 is that the copy of election petition which has been served on him is not true copy of election petition and pages concerning verification and affidavit have not been served on him and, therefore, the election petition is fit to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the Act. The another objection of respondent No. 1 is that the petitioner in his election petition has made reckless and imaginary allegations of commission of irregularities and illegalities in the counting of ballot papers but he has failed to furnish material facts and relevant particulars regarding these allegations and there is no contemporaneous docum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The Death reference and the Criminal Appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Appellant Rajo Yadav, Babloo Yadav, Manoj Yadav, Sanjay Yadav and Bishwa Nath Yadav have been found guilty for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 140 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to death, whereas appellant Shatrughan Yadav has been found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Appellant Rajo Yadav and Babloo Yadav have also been found quality under Sections 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. However, no separate sentence has been passed under these counts.4. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext. 5) briefly stated is that in the night of 23/24.2.1997 while he was sleeping in his verandah and his father, step-mother, step-brother and step-sister ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of the present writ Application and C.W.J.C. No. 4843/2002 Raj Kumars v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 5031/2002 Nilam Devi v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4050/2002 Bibha Kumari v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4289/2002 Baljeet Singh v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4414/2002 Indrani Gope v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4528/2002 Smt. Rupa Devi v. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No. 4934/2002 Shivbrat Mahto and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 5216/2002, Indu Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 5238/2002 Surendra Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 3686/2002 Sharda Singh v. The State Election Commissioner, Patna and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 3896/2002 Prem Nath Mishra v. State Election Commission, Patna and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 3925/2002 Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4022/2002 Dasrath Prasad Yadav v State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4310/2002 Smt S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
M.L. Visa, J.1. All these four appeals, directed against the same judgment and order dated 11.4.1997 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1995, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27, Arms Act and both the sentences passed against him have been ordered to run concurrently.3. The case of prosecution, as stated in the fardbeyan of informant Siya Ram Singh (PW-7), in short, is that on 10-10-1994 at about 1 p.m., the informant alongwith his cousin Rajendra Singh, the then Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Nayagaon, came to Nayaganj market. Rajendra Singh had some work at Vaishali Kheshtriya Gramin Bank and he, therefore, went to the aforesaid bank si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. 1. There is no denial, and this is a matter on record, that but for orders of the High Gourt, Bihar would not have had elections in Institutions of self-Government identified in the Constitution of India under Chapters IX and IXA as the Panchayats and Municipalities. But, notwithstanding the aspect that elections have been held to the Panchayats in 2001 and the Municipalities during summer of this year, the entire geometry of the administration of the Panchayats and Municipalities is not in place. 2. Many aspects are still missing. For the last two years when this Court has been engaged with these matters with efforts to restore self Government to constitutionally identified institutions there seems to be a misunderstanding that City Corporations. Municipalities, Zila Parishads. Nagar Panchayats and Panchayats, arc still fiefs of the bureaucracy in administration. This is not so. 3. When the Constitution of India was amended by the 73rd and 74th amendments by in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the judgment and order, dated June 14, 2002 passed by Munsif I, Vaishali at Hajipur in Election Case No. 61 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned Munsif allowed the election petition filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, set aside the election of the petitioner as the Mukhiya of Rajasan Gram Panchayat, declared respondent No. 5 as the winning candidate in the election of Mukhiya and directed the respondent authorities to take the consequential measures in accordance with law.2. Election for the post of Mukhiya of Rajasan Gram Panchayat under Biddupur block in the district of Vaishali was held in April-May, 2000. There were twelve candidates in contest, including the petitioner and respondent No. 5. The polling was held on 11.4.2000 on 15 polling booths. The counting of votes commenced from 13.5.2000 and the result was announced on 18.5.2000 according to which the petitioner had go...
Tag this Judgment!