PRAFFUL CHANDRA SUDHANSHU Vs. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION (MUNICIPALITY) THROUGH THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th June, 2012 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9061 of 2012 Ed.--reported in : 2012 (4) PLJR 520., the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute relates to election of a Councillor of Ward No. 40, Danapur Nagar Parishad. Pursuant to declaration of the ejection programme, the appellant submitted his nomination for election as Councillor from Ward No. 40, Danapur Nagar Parishad. After due scrutiny of the nomination papers, the nomination submitted by the appellant was accepted by the Returning Officer on 26th April, 2012. The respondent no. 5 raised objection against the acceptance of the nomination on 28th April, 2012. The same having not been considered by the Returning Officer, he submitted his objection before the Bihar State Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Election Commission"). The State Election Commission, under its direction dated 29th April, 2012, directed the Returning Officer to reconsider the nomination submitted by the appellant. On such reconsideration the said nomination was rejected on 29th April, 2012. It is the decision of the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of the appellant which led to above C.W.J.C. No. 9061 of 2012.

(2.) According to the appellant, the Returning Officer, having once accepted the nomination papers, had no authority to reconsider the decision and to reject the same on a later date. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon Rules 46, 47 and 51 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2007"). He has submitted that the appellant being the only contestant whose nomination was accepted by the Returning Officer. It was the duty of the Returning Officer to declare the appellant to be elected. Further, in view of the intervention by the State Election Commission, such declaration has illegally been aborted. Mr. Mangalam has also relied upon Section 479 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").