VIJOY KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY exercise of power under Section 136(1)(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), the State Election Commissioner vide order dated 25.5.2007 contained in Annexure -5, has disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Mukhiya of Mahinathpur Gram Panchayat in the District of Madhubani. The post of Mukhiya has been treated to be vacant with a direction to fill up the post afresh. Petitioner has challenged this order and seeks quashing of the same in the present writ application.

(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner, he is a citizen of India and he contested and won the election for the post of Mukhiya of Mahinathpur Gram Panchayat. After the result was declared and petitioner became Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat, a complaint case no. 2/2007 came to be filed before the State Election Commissioner, Bihar. Challenge in the said complaint case was under Section 136(1)(a) of the Act. The matter came to be heard on various dates, evidence was produced in the matter both on behalf of the State authorities as well as private respondent no. 4 to the present writ application. These evidences led towards a conclusion that the petitioner had acquired Nepali Citizenship when he attained the age of 17 years. His father too had Nepali Citizenship so does one of his brothers. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the impugned decision is erroneous both on fact as well as law. According to him, petitioner was born and brought up in India and in support of the same he has given a detailed genealogical table in the writ application contained in Para 4. Not only this, according to him, even his education from schooling till college was in India and he has quite a few documents in his favour to show that the petitioner is an Indian Citizen. He further contends that he never applied for citizenship of Nepal and if there is evidence with regard to the same, he completely disowns the same as forged and fabricated documents.

(3.) THE question, therefore, for decision in the present writ application is whether the power exercised by the State Election Commissioner is based on cogent reasons duly supported by evidence or the same requires judicial interference.