PRIYAM Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner is seeking relief for quashing the order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Respondent No.5 in Case No. 30 of 2019 by which the petitioner has been declared unsuited on account of violation of Section 18(1)(k) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Municipal Act') as it has been recorded that the petitioner did not pay all the taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election was held.

(3.) The short fact of this case is that the election of Ara Municipal Corporation was conducted in the year 2017 in which the petitioner filed her nomination paper on 25.4.2017 for the post of Ward Councilor from the Ward No. 44 which was accepted, fought the election, declared elected as Councilor on 23.5.2017. She also filed her nomination for the post of Mayor of Ara Municipal Corporation on 9.6.2017, was elected on the post but, after a while, two independent persons of the locality, namely, Santosh Kumar and Abhay Kumar Pandey filed their respective complaint to the Bihar Election Commission, Respondent no.5. The complaint of Santosh Kumar was not under consideration before the Bihar Election Commission rather the complaint of Abhay Kumar Pandey, who filed complaints on two occasions, was deliberated, wherein took a plea that the petitioner suppressing the material fact and without making payment of up-to-date municipal rent, filed her nomination paper and was elected accordingly.