KIRAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.12.2001 passed by the Subordinate Judge -ll, Seikhpura in Election Case No. 1 of 2001 whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to dismiss the election petition on the ground of non -joinder of necessary party and defect in verification of the election petition has been rejected.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner as also respondent no. 5 besides other persons filed their nomination for election as Member of the Zila Parishad, Seikhpura. Said election was held on 23.4.2001 and the petitioner Kiran Devi, hereinafter referred to as the returned candidate, having secured largest number of votes was declared elected. Respondent No. 5, Saroj Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner, was her nearest rival who challenged the election of the returned candidate by filing a petition before Subordinate Judge -ll, Seikhpura which was registered as Election Petition No. 1 of 2001. Subsequent to the election of the petitioner as Member of the Zila Parishad she has also been elected as its Chairperson. In the election petition, although the election petitioner had prayed that he be declared to have been duly elected but did not implead all other persons who were candidates in the said election. While verifying the election petition, the election petitioner has stated that the statements made in the election petition is true to his knowledge.

(3.) MR . Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the prayer of the election petitioner that he be declared to have been duly elected as Member of the Zila Parishad, all other contesting candidates were necessary party and as such in the absence thereof the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the election petition on that ground alone, in support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Md. Zakir Hussain vs. Hareshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. [2001(4) PLJR 713] and my attention has been drawn to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment, which read as follows: