SWARNLATA VERMA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present petition has been filed "for quashing the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist, Gaya in Election Petition No. 01 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the petition dated 13.07.2017 filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC."

(3.) The respondent no. 11/petitioner is the returned candidate of the Ward Councillor election of the Gaya Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 11/petitioner submits that the learned Court below ought to have dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioners/respondent (1st set) which did not disclose any cause of action in terms of Rule 104 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the election petition read as a whole did not disclose any corrupt or illegal practice on the part of the respondent no. 11/petitioner and as such the election petition was not maintainable which ought to have been rejected as prayed for under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that throughout the election petition the only allegation is against the husband of the respondent no. 11/petitioner and not against the respondent no. 11/petitioner of having assisted the Block Level Officer in preparing voters list in which the names of the voters of ward no. 1 were included in ward nos. 2, 3 and 27. It is submitted that function of the preparation of the voters list lay with Government officials and the respondent no. 11/petitioner had no concern with the same.