MUSAI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in these two applications is identical. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. 150 of 1965 was elected as mukhiya and the petitioner in C. W. J. C. 151 of 1965 was elected as sarpanch of Ladaura Sumera Gram Panchayat in the District of Muzaffar-pur. The election petitions were presented before the Election Tribunal the member of which was a Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, challenging the election of both the petitioners. The nomination papers of both the petitioners had been rejected by the Elections Officer. They filed applications before the Subdivisional Officer under Rule 23 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules. The Subdivisional Officer accepted the nomination papers of both the petitioners. That being so, within the meaning of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of Rule 2 of the Rules, the proper Election Tribunal where the two election petitions ought to have been presented was one, the member of which was an Additional District Magistrate, because an order made under Rule 23 (4) of the Rules was sought to be challenged in both the applications, as originally presented. That Is to say, the case of the petitioners in both the election petitions was that the Subdivisional Officer had committed an error in accepting the nomination papers of both the petitioners. If that point would not have been taken in the election petitions, it is manifest that the election petitions could have been presented to the Election Tribunal, the member of which was the Deputy Collector In-charge Land Reforms, as appears from Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Rule 2.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the election petitions were not maintainable as the Election Tribunal, before which they were presented, had no jurisdiction to try them. On such an objection being raised, the statements contained in the relevant paragraphs of the two election petitions challenging the acceptance of the nomination papers of the petitioners by the Subdivisional Officer were not pressed by the petitioners in the two election petitions, i.e. they were sought to be deleted by amendment of the election petitions. The prayer was allowed by the Election Tribunal. And after such amendment, it is obvious that the election petitions were triable by the Election Tribunal, before which they were presented. The petitioners' grievance in both these writ petitions is that the amendment ought not to have been allowed in order to enable the petitioners in the election petitions to cure an infirmity of the kind which involved the point of jurisdiction and would have entailed their dismissal.

(3.) Mr. Jagdish Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the two cases has placed reliance upon Raja Ram Sahu v. Brijraj Bahadur, (1959) ILR 38 Pat 95 in support of his proposition on the grievance of the petitioners as stated above. On behalf of the opposite parties and the State of Bihar, reliance has been placed upon the decision of Sahai, J. in Dhanilal Misra v. Dwarka Nath Misra. 1963 BLJR 86 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, AIR 1964 SC 1545 and Amin Lal v. Hunna Mal. AIR 1965 SC 1243.