IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6698 of 2011
GEETA DEVI .
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
-----------
2. 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for
the State Election Commission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
her nomination for the post of Sarpanch from the
Noorchak Panchayat in Bisfi Block, District-Madhubani
was found to be valid on scrutiny and her name figured in
Form-7 published on 15.3.2011. Having learnt that
thereafter instead of allotting an election symbol to her and
publishing her name also in Form-9 to the contrary, her
name has been removed from the category of valid
nomination. The petitioner has represented to the State
Election Commission which has given appropriate
directions in the matter on 28.3.2011, notwithstanding
which no developments had taken place preventing her
from contesting election which are to be held on 30.4.2011.
Reliance is placed on a Bench decision reported in 2001(1)
PLJR 815 (Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar).
Counsel for the Commission prays for time to
seek instructions. The Court does not consider the same
necessary at this stage.
The order of the Commission dated 28.3.2011
2
addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-District Electoral
Officer (Panchayat), Madhubani notices explicitly the
grievance of the petitioner. It then directs for an enquiry
that if her name had been published in Form-7, why was it
not published in Form-9. Whether as alleged her
nomination papers have been made intentionally to
disappear. If her allegations are found to be correct, her
name may be added in Form-9 and an election symbol
allotted to her.
In the case of Vijay Kumar Verma (supra), a
finding of fact was arrived at that the returning officer had
acted arbitrarily in rejecting the nomination leading to
punishment imposed on him also. The State Election
Commission had expressed its difficulty to restore the
nomination of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that
the nomination was rejected on false and baseless ground
confirmed in enquiry. It was in that factual background
that the directions came to be given. The judgment relied
upon may or may not have application depending on the
factual outcome of the enquiry directed by the State
Election Commission.
To this Court, the order of the Commission dated
28.2.2011 is complete in itself in all respects. The orders
of the Commission are made to be complied with by
subordinates and implemented by the Commission itself.
3
The writ petition is disposed with direction to the
Commission to ensure that its order dated 28.3.2011 is
forthwith complied in accordance with law so that
circumstances warranting, the petitioner is not left without
a remedy based on the allegations made by her keeping in
mind that the elections are to be held on 30.4.2011.
The writ application stands disposed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)