VISHWANATHPRASAD Vs. ELECTION OFFICER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE MADHUBANI SHYAMA NAND YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, who claim to be agriculturists and traders of Madhubani, have challenged the election programme dated 24/1/1992 published in a Hindi daily on 3lst January, 1992 for election of members of Madhubani Agricultural Product Market Committee. They have further prayed that all steps subsequently taken by the Election Officer, the respondent herein, should also be quashed. Their main grievance is that if an election is held in pursuance of the election programme (Annexure-1) the election will be illegal, since it is sought to be held in breach of the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, and the Rules made thereunder. The election was to be held on 11th March, 1992, and the instant writ petition was filed on 5th March, 1992. At the admission stage itself the respondent has filed his counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit and after hearing the parties at length this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. It may only be noticed that on 12th March, 1992 this Court had made specific direction that the pendency of the writ petition would not prevent the petitioners from challenging the election before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they are agriculturists and traders of Madhubani. They were entitled to vote and to contest the election for the membership of Madhubani Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Their names were illegally excluded from the electoral roll and consequently they were deprived of their right to contest the election and to vote in the election. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that at least four months before the expiry of the terms of the Market Committee, the voters' list has to be revised in accordance with the above Rule. According to the petitioners, no such revision was undertaken, by the respondent. Since no revision was undertaken draft voters' list was published inviting objections to illegal inclusion or exclusion of the names in the said list. Consequently, no final list, as required by the Rule, was published. In a nutshell, the voters' list not having been revised and not published in accordance with Rule 5, many persons were illegally excluded from taking part in the election including the petitioners, who were intending candidates. Secondly, the petitioners made a grievance that the notification called upon the voters to elect only the representatives from amongst the traders. According to the petitioners, three representatives of traders had to be elected to the Market Committee in accordance with Rule 3 (ii) read with Section 9 of the Act. It is, therefore, urged that the notification is illegal. Lastly, it was urged that the date for allotment of symbols was changed from 15th February, 1992 to 22nd February, 1992. This was in violation of Rule 8 of the Rules, since no such change could be brought about once the election process had begun.

(3.) A counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent denying the factual allegations in the writ petition. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent that even if the petitioners had any grievance against the manner in which the election was being held, they should have sought their remedy before the Director under Rule 14 (iv) of the Rules which provides a forum of appeal against any decision of the Election Officer against the rejection of a nomination paper. In any event, under Rule 43 the petitioners could have challenged the election before the Munsif in accordance with the Rules. Instead of resorting to the remedies provided under the Act and the Rules, the petitioners have unnecessarily filed the instant writ petition.