RISHIDEO PANDEY SON OF LATE SATYANARAYAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ, BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) CHALLENGE in the present writ application is to the order dated 1st day of September, 2007, which has been passed by the Court of learned Munsif, Gopalganj jn Election Petition No. 5/2006. By virtue of the impugned order contained in Annexure -3 the election petition of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the bundle of facts based on the evidence, oral or documentary, led during the trial of the said petition, prima facie, does not succeed in making out a case of any kind of irregularity in the counting of votes or declaration of results by keeping out valid votes of the petitioner, in the final declaration of the results. The election in question is for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Lamichaur under the Bhore Block in the district of Gopalganj. The election for the same was held on 2.6.2006 and the counting of votes was held on 17.6.2006. The final results after counting was declared wherein respondent no. 7, namely, Janardan Singh was declared the winner having obtained 806 votes and the petitioner having obtained 801 votes. In other words, petitioner got ' defeated by margin of five votes. Petitioner alleges irregularity in counting including excluding valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner illegally by the Returning Officer. It is alleged in the writ application that aggrieved by the result and the way the counting was done in terms of the requirement of Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Rules an application for recount was made but the same was not acted upon. This compelled the petitioner to file the election petition before the Court of learned Munsif, which was registered as Election Petition No. 5/ 2006. The matter was contested, issues framed and that decision came to be rendered vide the order dated 1.9.2007. Since the election petition has been dismissed on the ground that no case is made out the present writ application has come to be filed.

(3.) ONE of the primary allegation made in the plaint was that more than 200 ballot papers for which votes was cast in favour of the petitioner was kept out from the counting in a planned and concerted manner by defendant nos. 1 to 6. This was done with the sole object of defeating the petitioner and favouring respondent no. 7. Despite protest and objection made by the petitioner before the concerned authorities nothing was done by them to correct the harm caused to the petitioner by their conduct. If this basic fact is taken cognizance of then the petitioner has an excellent case for interference with the impugned order.