JAIMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ application springs up a question as to whether the petitioner was guilty of impersonation in contesting the election to the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Gwalpara in the district of Madhepura held in the year 2011 and if so whether on this count, she can be declared disqualified to hold the said post as has been done by the impugned order passed by the State Election. Commission (for short "the Commission'') (respondent No. 5) under order dated 4.12.2013 (Annexure-1) passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 17 of 2011 (Dushyant Kumar v. Jaimala Devi)? Related question to be answered is whether the respondent Commission was justified in setting aside the election of the petitioner to the said post on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of impersonation and committed fraud?

(2.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, counsel for Respondent No. 4, Mr. Girish Pandey for the State Election Commission and A.C. to G.P. 4 for the State.

(3.) While assailing the order passed by the respondent Commission, it has been submitted that in a matter like this where evidence was required to be led/produced and a finding on appraisal thereof was required to be made regarding the status of the petitioner, the Commission erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 136(2) of the Act. It is next submitted that even if the said conclusions arrived at by the respondent Commission are accepted argumenti causa, the respondent Commission was not justified in passing the impugned order. The grounds on which she has been held disqualified and her election has been set aside/annulled are not specifically set out in Section 135 or Section 136(1) of the Act. In other words, only upon reaching a conclusion that the petitioner was disqualified to hold the post strictly in terms of Section 135 or 136(1) of the Act, the respondent Commission is conferred the jurisdiction to held her disqualified for the post. The respondent Commission completely erred in holding that the petitioner was guilty of impersonation as there is/are more than adequate materials/evidence on record to establish that Jaimala Devi and Pramod Ranjan is one and the same person. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the same vein, urged that it was not the case of the complainant (respondent No. 6) that Jaimala Devi and Pramod Ranjan are/were two different persons. The respondent Commissioner has, therefore, no occasion to make out a third case in order to hold the petitioner disqualified for the post. If the parties before the Commission were not at variance on the said issue, then it was wholly unjust on the part of the respondent Commission to pose a third question (not at issue) and record a finding thereon.