NANIK CHANDRA VATSALYA Vs. BIRENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case obtained a rule from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling upon the Election Officer, respondent No. 3 and the Sub-divisional Officer, respondent No. 5 to show cause why the orders passed by them should not be quashed. The order of respondent No, 3 was passed on 3-3-1970 (annexure 2). As against that the petitioner preferred an objection before the Subdivisional Officer, respondent No. 5 who by his order dated 9-3-1970 (annexure 1) rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing both the orders contained under Annexures 1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioner along with respondents 1 and 2 were candidates for the election of Mukhia of Amarpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Saharsa, and they filed their nomination papers before respondent No. 3. The nomination papers of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were rejected on 3-3-1970, as mentioned above by respondent No. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed an objection before the Subdivisional Officer, respondent No. 5 under Rule 23, Clause (3) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner was mainly on the ground that his name was entered in the electoral roll of the two Gram Panchayats, namely Amarpur Gram Panchayat and Sonbarsa Gram Panchayat contrary to the provisions of Rule 5, Clause (3) of the Rules. It appears that the Block Development Officer had rejected the nomination of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that his resignation from the post of a clerk of Amarpur H.E. School had been accepted by the Managing Committee of the said school. Although the petitioner had filed before the Election Officer the paper to show that he had already tendered his resignation and the Secretary of the said school had accepted his resignation, but the Election Officer was of the view that the resignation had to be accepted by the Managing Committee of the said School. Therefore, he held that the petitioner failed to establish that his resignation was legally accepted by the said school. As regards the objection made by the respondent No. 1 to the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that his name was entered in the electoral roll of the two Gram Panchayats namely, Amar-pur Gram Panchayat and Sonbarsa Gram Panchayat, the Election Officer held that the said objection was not based on a good ground for rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.

(3.) The impugned order of the Subdivisional Officer, however, shows that he was satisfied that the petitioner has been able to establish that he had no concern with the school on the date when he filed the nomination. However, he held that since he was a voter of both the Gram Panchayats, namely, Amarpur and Sonbarsa his nomination was vitiated. In the result, he agreed with the conclusion of the Election Officer and thereby held that the petitioner's nomination had been rightly rejected. On notice having been served a cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 1 alone, and no cause has been shown in this case on behalf of respondents 3 and 5.