USHA DEVI Vs. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION (PANCHAYAT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case in hand is a classical example of abuse of power by a Returning Officer, who though assigned with the pious duty of ensuring a fair and free election, has hijacked the democratic process and the reasons are not known.

(2.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though endeavours to question the declaration of result to the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kansi in the district of Darbhanga but the foundation of the writ petition does not rest on election rivalry rather the complaint is on the victimization faced by the contestants on account of the whimsical acts of the Returning Officer who has not chosen to include the votes cast in one of the election booths and again the reason is not known. The matter in contest relates to the election of the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Kansi in the district of Darbhanga. It is following the notification issued by the State Election Commission under Section 124 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act) and the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the election rules) framed thereunder that the election process for filling up of the various representative posts under ,,the Act was set in motion . In so far as the present case is concerned, it relates to the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Kansi, District Darbhanga. The Block Development Officer, Darbhanga Sadar was notified as the Returning Officer. The date of election to the post of Mukhiya, was fixed on 26.5.2016. The petitioner, the private respondent and two others filed their nominations for the post and succeeded in scrutiny and whose name finds mention at Annexure -1. 16 booths were established by the State Election Commission for holding the election in question. The election was peacefully held on 26.5.2016. The counting of the votes cast at each of the booths took place and the result of such counting together with the votes secured by the respective candidate is placed on record, vide Annexure -2 series in Form 20(part -1) of the form prescribed under ,,the election rules. The booth wise result sheet in Form 20 (part -2) under Rule 76(2) of the rules is enclosed at Annexure -3 and the serious lapse committed by the Returning Officer is apparent from its bare perusal for while the result sheet present at page 29 of the proceedings is in relation to Booth Nos. 1 to 7, the result sheet at page 30 relates to Booth Nos. 9 to 15. In between, the Returning Officer has committed a serious blunder in omitting to include the votes secured by the candidates at Booth No. 8 as per the vote count present at Annexure -2 series page 21 of the proceedings which relates to booth No.8. The petitioner made a complaint before the Returning Officer which was ignored. He thereafter approached the District Election Officer - cum - District Magistrate, Darbhanga vide his representation present at Annexure -4 and whereupon a show cause was issued to the Returning Officer cum Block Development Officer, Kewati on 19.6.2016 vide Annexure -5 to the writ petition but the same was not responded to rather the Returning Officer went ahead to administer oath to the returned candidate i.e. respondent no.6 herein on 23.6.2016. A second show cause was issued by the District Magistrate on the same date vide Annexure 5/1 which again was not responded to and which led to the framing of charge vide letter dated 25.6.2016 issued under the signature of the District Election Officer - cum - District Magistrate, Darbhanga. The petitioner aggrieved is before this Court.

(3.) Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam has appeared for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Jha A.C. to AAG 8 appears for the State, the State Election Commission is represented by Mr. Amit Srivastava and Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh and Mr. P.K. Shahi learned Senior Counsel appears for the returned candidate along with Mr. Manish Kumar.