w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Uchit Bhai Patel v/s State of Bihar

    C.W.J.C 4088 Of 2006

    Decided On, 12 April 2006

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

    For the Appearing Parties: ------------



Judgment Text

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, J.

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a direction to set aside the order dated 13.3,2006 passed by respondent No. 2, the Returning Officer (Panchayat) -cum-Circle Officer, Jamalpur, Munger, by which the nomination paper of the petitioner for election to the post of Mukhiya 2006 has been rejected/cancelled in the scrutiny on the ground that in the nomination

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

form in column Nirbachan Chetra Sankhaya the petitioner has wrongly written the word 3 (three) instead of the word, 8 (eight) and further to restore the. petitioner's nomination.

(2.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record the impugned order dated 13,3.2006 which could not be filed by him earlier since it was not available when the writ petition was filed. From perusal of the said order it appears that the ground for rejection was that the voter serial number of both the candidate and the proposer were wrong.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the serial number of both the petitioner as well as of the proposer was correctly mentioned as can be found from 3 perusal of Annexure-3 to the writ petition which is the voters list of territorial constituency No. 8 of Indukh (West) Gram Panchayat, but due to over-sight in the nomination paper territorial constituency number was wrongly mentioned as 03 (three) instead of 08 (eight). From a perusal of the said voters list of territorial constituency of Gram Panchayat Indukh (West) the petitioner's name is to be found at Sl. No. 495 and that of his proposer is to be found at Serial No. 204. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the said error would come within the protection granted by Rule 41(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules 2006, which provides that no nomination paper can be rejected on account of any clerical or typographical error or any error which is not material and accordingly he contends that the mentioning of the wrong serial number of the territorial constituency is not a material error and hence, he ought to have been permitted to make the correction and his nomination paper should not have been rejected.

(4.) Learned Counsel for the state Election Commission, however, contends that the said error is a material error and the Returning officer while making scrutiny is not obliged to make a research into the different electoral rolls in order to find out in which territorial constituency the name of the petitioner finds place in the voters list.

(5.) However, the said issue is not relevant in the present matter due to another serious defect which is to be found in the nomination paper of the petitioner. Under Section 135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Ordinance, 2006 a person whose name is in the voters list of any territorial constituency within a Panchayat shall be qualified to be elected as a member of office bearer of the said panchayat. In terms of the said provision the petitioner would be eligible for contesting from the territorial constituency No. 3 although his name appears in the voters list of the territorial constituency No. 8 of the Panthayat. But with respect to the proposer specific provision is made in Rule 39(1)(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Rules, 2006 whereby the name of the proposer muse be entered in the voters list of the concerned territorial constituency of the panchayat. From Annexure-3 to the writ petition it is clear that the proposer Dipak Kumar's name appears in the voters list of territorial constituency No. 8 of Gram Panchayat whereas the petitioner has filed his nomination for election from territorial constituency No. 3 of the said Panchayat. Thus his proposer was disqualified to Jag act as proposer for Constituency No. 3 and the nomination paper was, therefore, rightly rejected on the ground that his name aid not appear in the concerned voters list. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to cost
O R