MOHAMMAD SIRAJ AHAMAD Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the notification dated 8-2-97, by which his election as Pradhan of 7/18 Kairang Khomidok Gram Panchayat was cancelled and in his place the respondent No. 4 was declared elected.

(2.) This writ petition was heard by a learned single Judge and under order dated 9-5-97 the petition was dismissed as the learned single Judge was not inclined to intervene in the matter in view of the existence of a forum for alternative remedy. Against this decision of the single Bench, a writ appeal was filed. By an order dated 30-7-97 of a Division Bench passed in Writ Appeal No. 69/97 the Writ Appeal was disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge and, further it was ordered that the Civil Rule No. 185/95 should be re-heard on merit by a single Bench of this Court. Therefore, this Civil Rule was placed for hearing before another learned single Judge and the learned single Judge passed an order on 4-9-97 for placing the matter before the Division Bench for a decision as to whether the present election dispute was to be heard by the Election Tribunal or by this Court. When the matter was again placed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench by an order dated 26-9-97 directed for placing the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed an order/note on 16-11-97 that under the existing High Court Rules, the matter needs to be reconsidered and disposed of by the learned single Judge. Hence, this matter has come up before this Bench.

(3.) Bereft of the details, the necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the present case are that both the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 4 along with 4 (four) other candidates contested in the election of Pradhan of Sheet No. 7/18 of Kairang Khomidok Gram Panchayat. The election was held on 31-1-97. It is stated by the Petitioner that the counting of vote started on 6-2-97 and concluded on the same day. The petitioner secured 60 votes more than the number of votes secured by his nearest candidate (Defendant No. 4). A certificate of election was issued on 6-2-97 by the Returning Officer (Annexure-A/1). Thereafter, a notification dated 8-2-97 (Annexure-A/2) was issued by the Returning Officer, by which the election of the petitioner as Pradhan was cancelled and in his place the respondent No. 4 was declared elected. The aforesaid notification was published in a local daily. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court praying for quashing the notification (Annexure-A/2).