DEOSARAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India relates to election to the post of Mukhia of Ramabandh Gram Panchayat. The election programme was published on the 23rd March, 1971. Item No. 15 of the programme, viz., the date for the election of Mukhia, was later on revised to be the 5th of June, 1971. The petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed their respective nomination papers but before scrutiny respondent No. 5 withdrew his nomination. On the 2nd April, 1971, the petitioner objected to the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 4 (Satrughan Narain Singh) on the grounds envisaged in Rule 89 (b) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959, but his objections were overruled by the Election Officer by his order dated the 3rd April, 1971. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sub-divisional Officer under Rule 23 (4) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules. The appeal was allowed on the 15th April, 1971. It was allowed in the sense that the nomination paper of respondent No. 4 was rejected and, as a result thereof, the petitioner was elected uncontested as the Mukhia of Ramabandh Gram Panchayat on the 19th April, 1971, and he assumed charge of the office.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 filed an application before this Court (C.W.J.C. No. 525 of 1971) and prayed therein that the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer rejecting his nomination paper be set aside. The said application came up for final hearing before B. N. Jha, J. who quashed the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, dated the 15th April 1971, rejecting the nomination paper of respondent No. 4 and also set aside the election of the petitioner (respondent No. 4 to that application) as Mukhia. A direction was also given for the election to proceed in accordance with law. In consequence of that order, the election for the post of Mukhia of Ramabandh was fixed for the 5th of June, 1971, which was later on changed to the 9th of June, 1971. The petitioner, however filed the present application on the 1st of June, 1971.

(3.) The point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the election having been set aside there ought to have been a fresh election from the very beginning and the issuance of the programme for the election of Mukhia on the 5th of June, 1971, was not according to law. It was also urged that the programme for election to the post of Mukhia having been published for holding it on the 5th of June, 1971, the date could not have been abruptly changed to the 9th of June, 1971, without following the mandatory provision mentioned in Rule 17 of the Rules.