BHOLA PRASAD SAO Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above three matters relate to the election for the post of Mukhiya of Mahudar Gram Panchayat of Kowakole Block in the district of Nawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat) and, as such, as agreed, all the matters, including the contempt matters, and the intervention application have been heard for final disposal together at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the questions Involved, few relevant facts are that besides others, the petitioner as well as the intervenor -petitioner Sahdeo Yadav were also the candidates for the post of Mukhiya for the election in the Panchayat which took place on 11.4.2001. According to the petitioner, on 21.5.2001 sealed ballot boxes were opened and votes cast were arranged in bundles, but thereafter suddenly the counting was stopped. The petitioner approached the authorities concerned, including the State Election Commission by filing representation for proceeding to the counting but having failed to get redressal of his said grievance, filed the writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8699 of 2001, in this Court seeking direction to the respondents, including the State Election Commissioner, the Returning Officer, the Election Officer and the District Panchayat Officer to count votes without any delay. It was alleged that although election of the Panchayat was over, but counting was arbitrarily stayed without any rhyme or reason. The Commission appeared in the said writ petition and the Counsel appearing for them submitted that counting is normally stayed because of some complaints received and the Election Commission may on consideration of the facts and circumstances decide for repolling. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, as was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 20th July, 2001 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) with a direction to the Election Commission to complete the process of election and declare the final result of the Panchayat in question by the middle of November, 2001. It was further directed that anyone aggrieved by such result will be at liberty to question its validity before the Election Tribunal, in accordance with law. The said direction was not complied.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, on 19.11.2001 the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 2949 of 2001 in this Court for initiating contempt proceeding against the contemnor -opposite parties for disobeying the aforementioned order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8699 of 2001 and after disposal of M.J. C. No. 2948 of 2001 filed by the Commission wherein this Court found that after the contempt is committed petition for extension of time is not maintainable, the petitioner filed another M.J.C. No. 3220 of2001 for initiating contempt proceeding against the Election Commission and other officials for flouting the order of this Court by not declaring the result. Meanwhile, when the petitioner learnt that a notice had been affixed on the notice board in which fresh election programme had been mentioned and schedule date for re -election was 20.1.2001, he filed the present writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 542 of 2002, in this Court seeking direction to the respondents to count the votes polled on 11.4.2001 for the post of Mukhiya and not to hold fresh election on 20.1.2002. The writ petition was placed before the Bench assigned with the subject and his Lordship on consideration of the facts and finding that the Election Commission is not above law nor can ignore the mandatory direction issued by the High Court stayed the election process for the concerned Panchayat scheduled to be held on 20.1.2002 and directed for personal appearance along with affidavit and show cause by the person who had decided for re -poll as to why he be not punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, subsequently, by order dated 18.2.2002, his Lordship considering that the earlier orders were passed by this Court directed for placing the writ petition for hearing before this Court after taking orders from Hon ble the Chief Justice and, accordingly, the matter was placed before this Court on 26.2.2002. Since then the matter had to be adjourned on several occasions mostly on the request of the learned counsel for the Commission.