JAI NARAIN PANDIT Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State Election Commission and for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, seek a direction upon the respondents to produce on record the letter dated 12.5.2012 issued by the State Election Commission and the letter dated 13.5.2012 issued by the District Election Officer, Municipality, Madhepura by which they had directed the respondent No. 5, the Returning Officer, Madhepura Municipal Council Election, 2012 to reject the nomination paper of the petitioners which they had filed to contest Madhepura Municipal Council Election, 2012 for the post of Ward Councilors from Ward Nos. 19 and 26 respectively which was accepted by the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny and symbol was also allotted to the petitioners. They further seek quashing of the order dated 13.5.2012 passed by the Returning Officer by which he had rejected the nomination papers of the petitioners on the ground that they had more than two living children.

(2.) The facts of this case are not in dispute. Briefly stated, both the petitioners had filed their respective nomination papers to contest the Municipal Election, 2012 from Madhepura Nagar Parishad on the post of Ward Councilor for Ward Nos. 19 and 26 respectively by filing their nomination papers on 24.4.2.012. Both the petitioners were called for scrutiny on 26.4.2012.

(3.) It is the stand of the respondents that certain persons had raised objection to their nomination on 26.4.2012 before the Returning Officer and had filed their written objection but the same was not taken into consideration by the Returning Officer and therefore, they had faxed the said written objection to the State Election Commission on 26.4.2012 itself at 1.16 P.M. The admitted fact however, remains that the Returning Officer upon scrutiny overruled the objection. It is admitted by the petitioners also that one Saibun Khatoon had filed objection regarding the candidature of petitioner No. 2 on the ground that she had more than two living children but no document was produced before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny in support of her objection that the 3rd child of the petitioner was born after 4.4.2008. The petitioner No. 2 denied the allegation made in the objection by filing an affidavit that the last child was born before 4.4.2008 and therefore she was not disqualified. The Returning Officer overruled the objection and the nominations of the petitioners were accepted. After expiry of last date of withdrawal of nomination form, he published the list of contesting candidates in proper proforma in which the names of the petitioners were also mentioned in the list of contesting candidates in their respective wards and both of them were allotted separate election symbols by the Returning Officer. Thereafter by letter dated 12.5.2012 issued by the State Election Commission, the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Municipality), Madhepura was informed that on the basis of complaint received, it was found that the petitioners had filed false affidavit regarding the date of birth of their 3rd child who was in fact tan on 8.9.2010. Accordingly, he was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners and remove their names from Form 14B as also their symbols, whereas the names of the other contestants shall remain as it is and only Sl. No. would change and accordingly, ballot papers should be printed. It was further directed that FIR should be lodged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bihar Municipal Act against the petitioners. The District Election Officer and the Returning Officer acted accordingly and the nomination papers of the petitioners were rejected and their names removed from the Form 14B and they were not allowed to contest the election. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have approached this Court.