MUKESH KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE RAM SURAT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam along with Mr. Ravi Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Patanjali Rishi, learned AC to AAG-6 for the State; Mr. Amit Shrivastava along with Mr. Girish Pandey, learned counsel for the State Election Commission; Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior along with Mr. S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no. 7 and 8; Mr. Amit Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9; Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10 and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan along with Mr. Navin Anand, learned counsel for the respondents no. 11 and 12.

(2.) The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:

(3.) The petitioners are elected members of Panchayat Samiti, Kanti in the district of Muzaffarpur and pursuant to their election were called upon to take oath of their office and also in turn to elect the Pramukh and Up-Prakukh, which was scheduled to be held on 29.06.2016 at 10.00 A.M. It appears that out of the 30 elected members only six i.e., respondents no. 7 to 12 turned up within time, whereas the petitioners could not reach the venue and thus were not able to attend the meeting, in which, after administrating oath of office to the members present, the election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh was held as per schedule. The petitioners contend that they had reached the venue prior to the actual election having taken place but were denied entry and thus, such election stands vitiated. The complaint made to the respondent no. 5, i.e., the Returning Officer, on the same day, was forwarded to the respondent no. 4. Thereafter, a formal complaint was filed before the respondent no. 4 on 04.07.2016, which has been rejected by order dated 18.08.2016 (Annexure-5) which is impugned in the present writ application.