SUDHIR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by Annexure-7, an order issued by the Election Officer on 18-10-2002 changing some of the polling booths in accordance with the letter of the District Magistrate bearing No. 293 dated 11-10-2002 and letter No. 294 dated 17-10-2002 has come to this Court. The said letters are annexed as Annexure-B and Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate.

(2.) It is not in dispute before me that the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Triveniganj was to have its election in accordance with law and bye-laws of the said Committee. Undisputedly, election notification was issued on 9-9-2002. In accordance with the rules the Deputy Collector was authorised to work and discharge his duties as the Election Officer. On 16-9-2002 the said Election Officer declared the polling station under Annexure-4. On 20-9-2002 the petitioner and others filed certain objection to change the polling booth. It appears that thereafter some other Deputy Collector made an enquiry after issuing a public notice and vide Annexure-6 ordered that the polling booths be changed. After this change the Collector, Supaul on 11-10-2002, vide his letter No. 293 required the Executive Magistrate-Cum-Election Officer to issue a fresh notification fixing the polling booths in accordance with three alternatives proposed in the objections which were filed by the Member of Parliament of the area and the other representatives of the public. On 17-10-2002 vide letter No. 294 the District Magistrate Supaul issued yet another letter and required the Election Officer to issue a fresh notification and report compliance of the matter to the District Magistrate. It appears that feeling bound by the direction-cum-recommendation issued/made by the District Magistrate the Election Officer who otherwise is a subordinate to the District Magistrate issued Annexure-7 and changed some stations of the polling booths. This is how the petitioner has come to this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the powers are conferred upon any officer to act and discharge his duties as Election Officer then the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner who have authorised such officer, would have no jurisdiction in the matter nor would be entitled to issue orders or make recommendation for change of the polling booths or taken any steps in the matter in accordance with the direction of the District Magistrate/Deputy Collector. It is contended that from the tenor and texture of the order contained in Annexure-7 it would clearly appear that the Election Officer without application of his mind or without being aware of his own rights and authority simply observed the order issued by the District Magistrate, as if he was still a sub-ordinate to the District Magistrate and was not acting independently as an Election Officer.