SUDHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.1.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda whereby the said respondent has summarily rejected the election petition filed by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was one of the candidates in Panchayat Election and she was contesting for the post of Mukhiya of Kasba Panchayat in the District of Godda. The result was declared on 24.12.2010 and respondent No. 7 was declared as elected. It has been submitted that the election of respondent No. 7 was in contravention of the prescribed provisions of law. Several ballets, not duly signed and sealed by the Presiding Officer, were also taken into consideration in counting votes. The petitioner had challenged the said election of respondent No. 7 by filing election petition in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda on 6.1.2011. The same was registered as Election Petition No. 06/2011. The said petition was placed before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 8.1.2011 and on the same day the Sub-Divisional Officer summarily rejected the election petition by making an endorsement on the first page of the election petition itself.

(2.) It has been submitted that the order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as the same has not been passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

(3.) Mr. K.M. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Chapter 13 of Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 prescribes for a detailed procedure for filing election petition, hearing and disposal thereof. Rule. 113 provides for hearing of the election petition in accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. But the learned Sub - Divisional Officer has dealt with the same arbitrarily and casually and has summarily rejected the election petition by a cryptic and non-speaking order. The order is, thus, a nullity and is liable to be quashed by this Court.