DEBASHISH ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ application, extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked, wherein prayer has been made to direct the Respondent-Authority to include the name of the Petitioner in the voter list of Ward No. 10, Kadamdih, Chandil Panchayat and also to direct the concerned Respondent to accept the nomination of the Petitioner for the Dost of Ward Commissioner for the said Ward.

(2.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 10 of Chandil Block which has been divided into 12 election areas, but the name of the Petitioner does not find place in the voter list of Ward No. 10 published recently and as such, the Petitioner, who is desirous of contesting the election from Ward No. 10, would not be eligible to contest the election and thereby the Petitioner would be prevented from exercising his statutory and democratic right and under this situation, the Petitioner has moved to this Court for a direction to the concerned Respondent to include his name in the voter list and to accept his nomination form for the post of Ward Commissioner.

(3.) Learned Advocate General by referring to Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India submit that since the matter pertains to election of Gram Panchayat, it cannot be called In question except by an election petition presented before a Competent Authority and in the manner as provided under law. In this respect, learned Advocate General and also Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, would submit that keeping in view the constitutional mandate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that process of election of Parliament, State Legislature, Municipality, Gram Panchayat etc. cannot be questioned in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather that can be questioned only by way of election petition. Learned Counsel in this respect referred to the decisions rendered in the cases of Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahamdabad and Ors., 2006 8 SCC 352 and Anugrah Narain Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1996 6 SCC 303.