SARATCHANDRA MANDAL Vs. PHANI BHUSAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Bench of this Court has formulated a question of law in this Letters Patent Appeal and referred it to a Full Bench for its opinion under Rules 1 and 3 of Chapter V, Part II of the Patna High Court Rules. The question of law referred to is in the following terms:--

(2.) Respondent No. 1 was the elected Mukhiya of Gamaria Gram Panchayat in the district of Dhanbad. The appellant filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 and for declaring him duly elected to the office of the Mukhiya in accordance with the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The petition was contested by respondent No. 1 on various grounds. The Election Tribunal framed several issues for trial, and decided them in favour of the appellant, declaring the election of respondent No. 1 to be void and the appellant to be 'duly elected. Respondent No. 1 filed C.W. J. C. No. 98 of 1971 in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision of the Tribunal. The writ case came UP For hearing before B. D. Singh, J. The learned Judge found that the verification of the election petition was not made as required by Rule 75 (1) of the Rules hence the election petition was liable to be dismissed summarily under Rule 77. On a discussion of the various authorities on the point and following a Bench decision of this Court in Satya Nand Singh v. Bujhlal Singh (1967 BLJR 439), the learned Judge allowed the writ application and dismissed the election petition. The appellant preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court consisting of Shambhu Prasad Singh and Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, JJ., the Hon'ble Judges, as indicated in their order of reference, were pleased to doubt the correctness of the view expressed by a Bench of this Court in Satva Nand Singh's case (1967 BLJR 439). After elaborately referring to the various aspects of the matter, the decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court on the point, the Bench has formulated a question of law for our opinion, as stated above.