OM PRAKASH TIWARI Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the present writ Application and C.W.J.C. No. 4843/2002 Raj Kumars v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 5031/2002 Nilam Devi v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4050/2002 Bibha Kumari v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4289/2002 Baljeet Singh v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4414/2002 Indrani Gope v. State Election Commission, C.W.J.C. No. 4528/2002 Smt. Rupa Devi v. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No. 4934/2002 Shivbrat Mahto and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 5216/2002, Indu Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 5238/2002 Surendra Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 3686/2002 Sharda Singh v. The State Election Commissioner, Patna and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 3896/2002 Prem Nath Mishra v. State Election Commission, Patna and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 3925/2002 Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4022/2002 Dasrath Prasad Yadav v State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4310/2002 Smt Shakuntla Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4471/ 2002 Ruplal Mahto v. The Election Commission, Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4475/2002 Rajendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4565/2002 Ranjit Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. BUR 2002 (1) 288, C.W.J.C. No. 4606/2002 Bhupendra Prasad Singh v. Bihar State Election Commission, Patna and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 4982/2002 Prakash Chand v. State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 5054 of 2002 Kalawati Devi and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. and C.W.J.C. No. 5149/2002 Arvind Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.

(2.) THE petitioner of each of the case is making a complaint of epidemic caused by vires of illegal acts of the Election Officers and Returning Officers. THE petitioner's case in different petitions are that nominations have been illegally rejected, names of the voters have not been included in the list or after publication of the final list, the names of the voters have been deleted from the electoral roll. THE list supplied by the Municipal authorities shows the names of the petitioner, his proposer and seconder in a particular ward but it has been later on found that the proposer and seconder are not recorded in the electoral roll of the sad ward and list of the wrong ward has been supplied by the Municipal authorities, the Election Commission changed the Rules of the game after commencement of the game by issuing certain directions in relation to Additional Government Pleaders or Assistant Government Pleaders and the disqualification Clause has been wrongly applied. THE choral argument in support of the petitions are that ordinarily the High Court may not interfere in an election matter but when the illegality is writ large, the violation of the Rules, regulations and law is manifest and the arbitrariness, whims and caprices of the Officers is floating on the surface of the record, the High Court to maintain the purity of the elections and to put a control over the Returning/Election Officers must exercise its jurisdiction in these election matters irrespective of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India.

(3.) FROM a perusal of Section 18-A, it would clearly appear that no election in municipality shall be called in question except by Election Petition filed in case of election to a ward. For a proper appreciation of Section 18-A it would be necessary to refer to Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, Article 243-ZG reads as under. 243-ZG. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution: