AYODHYA SARAN RAI Vs. BALRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections were held in Betha Manpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Muzaffarpur on the 28th of March 1965. In the said election were elected opposite party No. 7 Abdul Latif, No. 9 Md. Waris, No. 11 Abdul Gafoor and No. 14 Ram-chalitar Thakur as four panchas and opposite parties 8, 10, 12 and 13 -- Ramjan Sail, Md. Shoaib Alam, Islam Ansari and Ram-brichh Singh respectively as members of the Executive Committee. In the election held on 23rd of April, 1965 the petitioner was elected to the office of the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat aforesaid and opposite party No. 5 Motiur Rahman was elected as the Sarpanch. Opposite party No. 15 was a candidate for being elected to the office of the Sarpanch. He lost in the election. He (Opposite party No. 15) along with opposite party No. 16 who is a voter filed an election petition under the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 hereinafter called the Rules, challenging the entire election by impleading not only the petitioner and opposite party No. 5 who were elected to the two offices in the election held on 23-4-65 but also the other eight opposite parties who were elected as panchas and members of the Executive Committee. But in the prayer portion of the election petition, a copy of which is annexure A to this application, the petitioners (opposite parties 15 and 16) prayed "to declare the election of the entire Gram Panchayat Batha Manpur held on 23-4-65 void illegal, invalid" Reading the petition as a whole, it is abundantly clear that opposite parties 15 and 16, bv a single petition, challenged the election of only two office-bearers, namely, petitioner and opposite party No. 5 who were respectively elected as Mukhiya and sarpanch in the election held on 23-4-65 and not the election of any of the office-bearers elected in the election held on 28-3-65.

(2.) The petitioner asked the Election Tribunal to dismiss the election petition on two preliminary grounds (i) that the election petition is not properly verified and (ii) that the requirement of Rule 73 of the Rules has not been complied with. The Election Tribunal has overruled both the objections. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the opposite parties to, show cause why the order of the Election Tribunal refusing to dismiss the election petition in limine should not be set aside. Nobody on behalf of the opposite parties who were elected to the various offices has appeared to oppose this application. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar.

(3.) The point that the election petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of defective verification has not been pressed before us. We, therefore, need not discuss that point.