SALIGRAM SHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 23 of the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and issuing necessary directions.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, briefly, stated is as follows: There was an election of Sarwak Gram Panchayat situated within the jurisdiction of the police-station at Rafiganj in the district of Gaya to take place in the year 1971. The date for nomination papers to be filed in connection with different posts was fixed as 30th of March, 1971. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for the office of Mukhiya. Respondents 4 to 14 also filed their nominations for the same post. The nomination papers of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were, however rejected thus leaving the petitioner and respondents 6 to 14 as the duly nominated candidates. At the time of the scrutiny respondent No. 6 filed a petition of objection to the acceptance of the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that he had entered into an agreement for the purpose of constructing a well in village Naraich lying in the Sarwak Gram Panchayat and had received an advance of money therefor but did not construct the well. The election officer rejected this petition and declared the nomination of the petitioner to be valid. The two respondents 4 and 5 whose nomination papers had been rejected did not file any objection petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate against the rejection of their nominations and the matter thus became final. Respondent No. 4. however, filed an objection petition under Rule 23 (4) before the Sub-divisional Magistrate directed against the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner. Sub-divisional Magistrate accepted the objection and declared the nomination of the petitioner to be invalid. Hence this application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points before me: Firstly, that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition from respondent No. 4 and the order passed thereon is, therefore, without jurisdiction. Secondly, that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as, he has not considered the question whether the petitioner was disqualified at the date of nomination but has accepted the previous state of things existing on a previous date as the determining factor. I must state at the outset that there is no substance in the first contention but the second contention of learned counsel must prevail.