CHANDRIKA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 7-10-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W. J,C. No. 5004/2002 granting the writ application filed by Mahendra Rai setting aside the judgment and order dated 6-4-2002 passed by the Munsif, Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran in Election Case No. 6/2000 allowing the election petition filed by the writ Respondent No. 4 setting aside the election of the present writ petitioner and declaring the writ Respondent No, 4/present appellant as the returned candidate, has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The appellant-election petitioner filed an election petition before the Munsif inter alia submitting that the corrupt practices were writ large and as his request for recount was unceremoniously rejected by the Election Officer, the Munsif must interfere in the matter, direct recount of the votes, set aside the election and declare him elected. It appears that evidence was led but from the side of the election petitioner/ appellant no evidence was led to prove the fact that he had made an application for recount and that was unceremoniously rejected. However, the learned Munsif ordered that the votes be recounted by his interim order. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the interim order dated 20-10-2001 was challenged before this Court but this Court refused to interfere at that stage. It appears that thereafter the votes were recounted and the learned tribunal interfered with the election, set aside the same and declared the present appellant as returned candidate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent No. 4 filed the writ application which after hearing learned Counsel for the parties was allowed.