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
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
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
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
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!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. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8 in the first case, who is also the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12925/2008.2. Both the writ applications pertain to the same matter and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner, Neelam Kumari, in C.W.J.C. No. 13840 of 2008 seeks quashing of the order contained in memo No. 1221 dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure-14) issued under the signature of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur, i.e., Respondent No. 5, by which it has been informed that in view of Section 18(4)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat Raj Tengrari under Meenapur Block of Muzaffarpur District will be held on 18.9.2008 at 11.00 A.M. in the B.R.C. Campus and for further consequential reliefs.4. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12925/2008, namely, Bisahwanath Prasad Kushwaha, on the other hand, has prayed that effect should be given...
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
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!