UDAI BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four nomination papers were filed for the office of Mukhiya of Harhachcha Gram Panchayat in the district of Darbhanga, out of which the nomination papers of respondent No. 3 and one other candidate, with whom we are not concerned in the present application, were rejected, and one of the candidates withdrew his nomination paper. The petitioner was, accordingly, declared elected uncontested as Mukhiya of that Gram Panchayat. On the 11th of March, 1960, respondent No. 3 filed an objection before the Elections Officer, namely, the Block Development Officer of Bahera, but his objection was rejected by him. He then filed Objection under Rule 28(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules before the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate. Darbhanga, but that objection was also rejected on the 17th of March, 1960. On the 6th of April, 1960, respondent No. 3 filed an election petition under Rule 72(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules before the Deputy Collector-Election Tribunal. Since, however, the impugned order was passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, an officer superior in rank to the Deputy Collector-Election Tribunal, the election petition was transferred to the additional Collector-Election Tribunal, Darhltanga, for disposal. Two objections were raised on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the election petition, namely, (i) that the election petition was time-barred, and (ii) that the nomination of respondent No. 3 had been rightly rejected, as he was a disqualified candidate, The Election Tribunal held that, in view of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, the election petition was within time, and that respondent No. 3 was not disqualified and his nomination paper had been wrongly rejected. Consequently, the election of the petitioner was set aside. Being thus aggrieved, he has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) This case came up lor hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, and the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there is a clear conflict between the provisions of Section 79(1) (c) and 79(1) (g) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He, therefore, referred the case to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision.

(3.) Mr. Jha, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the finding of the Election Tribunal that respondent No. 3 was not a disqualified candidate is wrong in law, inasmuch as the Election Tribunal did not examine the disqualification mentioned in Section 79(1) (g) of the Act and proceeded to decide the question only on the disqualification mentioned in Section 79(1) (e) of the Act. His contention is that under Section 79(1) (g) respondent No. 3 was disqualified and his nomination paper was rightlv rejected by the Elections Officer.