CHANDRA SHEKHAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as the Mukhiya of the Keotsha Gram Panchayat in 1978. Respondent 4 filed a petition under Rule 72, Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) challenging the election. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the applica tion on the ground that it was not accom panied by a verification and affidavit as re quired by the Rules. The Election Tribunal agreed with the petitioner and dismissed the application by order dated 18-9-1978 as con tained in Annexure 3. Respondent 4 ap pealed which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, by his order dated 16-2-1981 as contained in Annexucc 4. The Election Tribunal was directed to hear the election petition on merits. The peti tioner has by this application challenged the said order. .

(2.) Mr. D. N. Yadav, appearing in supr port of the application, has pressed the following points that the election petition suffers from such serious defects that it. has to be dismissed without a trial on merits :

(3.) Rule 75 requires an election petition to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of the pleadings. The Sub-rule (1) of Order 6, Rule 15, Civil P. C as modified by Patna amendment enjoins that the facts stated in every pleading shall be verified by solemn affirmation or on oath of the party before any officer empowered to administer oath under Section 139 of the Code. It has been contended by Mr. Yadav that the affidavit in support of the petition was sworn before the Election Tribunal itself and not before any Magistrate. Section 139 of the Code does not require the affidavit to be sworn necessarily before a Magistrate. The oath can be administered apart from a Magistrate by any Court or any officer or other person appointed by the High Court in this behalf jor any officer appointed by any other Court jempowered in this behalf by the State Government. It has not been stated in the writ application or claimed on behalf of the petitioner before me that the member of the Election Tribunal was not empowered to administer the oath. The first point urged has, therefore, no merit.