RAM BINAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State Election Authority and Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh appearing for the private respondent no. 8 who also was the contesting candidate.

(2.) Mr. Nikesh presses I.A. No. 29 of 2016 filed by one Bindeshwari Yadav, a member of the society who had also independently questioned the election of the petitioner as Chairman of the Charkawan Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Charkawan PACS') through Election Case No. 71 of 2014-15 and which has been disposed of in the light of the order passed in Election Case No. 72 of 2014-15 which is impugned in the present proceedings. A copy of the order passed in Election Case No. 71 of 2014-15 has been impugned at Annexure-2 to the interlocutory application. Although the cause of action for the intervener to question the order passed in Election Case No. 71 of 2014-15 would be in an independent proceedings but considering the import of the order passed in Election Case No. 71 of 2014-15 as well as its dependency in the outcome of the present proceedings, I have permitted Mr. Nikesh to address the Court on behalf of the intervener as well.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. It is not in dispute that the election of the petitioner to the post of Chairman of the 'Charkawan PACS' has been questioned solely on account of infirmity in the voter list and no other infirmity. Law is well settled to require an extensive discussion on the issue and a challenge to an election on the basis of infracted voter list simpliciter cannot be a ground to upset the election until such time that the election petitioner is able to establish that the voters who were ineligible but had entered in voter list, had also contributed to the success of the returned candidate, which issue is to be established by leading substantive evidence to that effect. An election of a returned candidate cannot be interfered with on mere oral assertions of an infracted voter list. The issue raised stands well discussed in the decision of this Court reported in 2015 PLJR 881 (Sushila Devi Vs. State) and the grievance raised stands squarely covered under the decision.