KUMAR NISHANT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dtd. 6/5/2022 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the State Election Commissioner, Jharkhand (the respondent no. 2), copy of which has been communicated to different authorities vide memo no. 1049 dtd. 6/5/2022 under the signature of the Secretary, State Election Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) whereby the respondent no. 2 while exercising the power conferred under Sec. 66(5) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 (in short the Act, 2001), has countermanded the election process of XVI, Ramgarh Zila Parishad Territorial Constituency No.5, Patratu (hereinafter to be referred as "the said constituency"). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the Returning Officer (the respondent no.5) to declare the petitioner as a duly elected candidate of Zila Parishad from the said Constituency in view of the provisions as contained in rule 51(1) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 (in short the "Rules, 2001") as the petitioner was the only candidate who filed nomination for the said constituency which was found valid in scrutiny.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Election Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 4) published a programme by way of public notice with respect to three-tier Panchayat (General) Election, 2022 for constitution of Ramgarh Zila Parishad and the detailed schedule of election to elect members of the said constituency was as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed his nomination papers before the respondent no.5 to contest the election for the said constituency. Some other persons had also purchased nomination papers to contest the said election, however they failed to submit their nomination papers till the last date and time fixed for filing of the same. During the process of scrutiny, the petitioner's nomination paper having been found valid was accepted by the respondent no.5. Since there was no other candidate to contest the election and that the petitioner had not withdrawn his candidature till the last date and time fixed for withdrawal of candidature, he should have been declared elected uncontested by the respondent no. 5 immediately after 3.00 P.M. on 7/5/2022 in view of the provisions contained in rule- 51(1) of the Rules, 2001. However, the respondent no. 2, vide impugned order dtd. 6/5/2022, arbitrarily countermanded the election process of the said constituency.