IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14306 of 2009
1. SHYAM SUNDER SINGH S/O BHAGIRATH SINGH VILL-
BAGODAR, P.O. & P.S. HASUA, BLOCK HASUA, DISTT. NAWADA
2. BIRENDRA PASWAN S/O PHAGU PASWAN VILL- BAGODAR,
P.O. & P.S. HASUA, BLOCK HASUA, DISTT. NAWADA
3. ARUN PASWAN S/O NAGESHWAR PASWAN VILL- BAGODAR,
P.O. & P.S. HASUA, BLOCK HASUA, DISTT. NAWADA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE REGISTRAR CO-
OPERATIVE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA
2. THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR,
VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA CUM NODAL OFFICER,
PACKS ELECTION
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-RETURNING
OFFICER FOR ELECTION OF PRIMINARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT
SOCIETY OF HASUA BLOCK, DISTT. NAWADA
5. THE BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER BLOCK- HASUA,
NAWADA
6. THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER BIHAR STATE ELECTION
AUTHORITY, PATNA
7. LAKSHAMI KANT SINGH S/O BAL KRISHAN SINGH VILL-
BAJARA, P.O. & P.S. HASUA, BLOCK- HASUA, DISTT. NAWADA
8. SHASHI SHEKHAR GANGHI S/O SHIV RATAN SINGH VILL-
MAHAMADPUR, P.O. & P.S. NASUA, BLOCK- HASUA, DISTT.
NAWADA
9. SHAILENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE SHIV BHAGAN SINGH VILL-
BAJRA, P.O., P.S. & BLOCK- HASUA, DISTT. NAWADA
10. ANIL RAVI DAS S/O BHANG RAVI DAS VILL- BAJRA, P.O., P.S.
& BLOCK- HASUA, DISTT. NAWADA
11. NAGO MANGHI S/O RAM DHANI MANGHI VILL- BAJRA, P.O.,
P.S. & BLOCK- HASUA, DISTT. NAWADA
For the Petitioners:- Mr. Bankey Bihari Singh,
Mr. Sanjay Kumar &
Mr. Shailendra Prasad,
Advocates
For the Respondent No.9:- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the State:- Mr. S.C.-18
For the State Election Commission:- Mr. K.B. Nath, Advocate
-----------
03. 04.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for
the State and for the respondent no.9.
The petitioners seek a declaration that the
2
elections for the post of Chairman and member of the
Executive Committee to the Primary Agriculture Credit
Society, Bagodar be declared void ab initio.
Petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are stated to have
subsequently preferred an Election Petition. The writ
application has therefore become infructuous with
regard to them and is accordingly disposed off.
Petitioner no.2 was also a candidate for the
post of member of the Executive Committee in the
reserved category. He was allotted an election symbol
“Kulhari”. On the date of the election when ballot
papers were distributed to those who intended to cast
votes, the election symbol was changed to a Baloon.
A counter affidavit is stated to have been
filed on behalf of official respondent nos. 3 to 5 on or
about 4.2.2010, affirmed by the Block Development
Officer-Cum-Returning Officer. It is not on record. The
Court therefore requested the counsel for the State for
his copy to peruse.
The counter affidavit does not make any
statement that it is on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and
5 also. The averments therefore are individual,
statement of respondent no.4, the Block Development
Officer-Cum-Returning Officer, Hisua at Nalanda who
alone remains answerable for the statements made.
3
Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit takes the facts of
the case beyond any controversy and it stands
admitted.
The Court is aghast at the manner in which
the Block Development Officer appears to be
discharging his duties, his sense of responsibility, not
only in obligation to the Government which has placed
trust in him, but also the casualness with which he
takes proceedings before this court defending the
interest of the Government.
Curiously the Block Development Officer
states that when the error in the ballot paper was
discovered it was put on the Notice Board on the
fateful day that the election symbol of the petitioner
no.2 stood changed to a Baloon. The importance of an
election symbol has been noticed by the Supreme
Court in AIR (1967) SC page 898 (Samyukta Socialist
Party Versus Election commission of India And
Another) at paragraph-11 has holding as follows:-
“11…….These arguments
require careful consideration because
the importance of the symbols to our
system of elections needs no
exaggeration. Symbols are its very soul
and without them the exercise of
franchise by the majority of our citizens
would be impossible. No doubt elections
are fought on party lines but even if
there is a plebiscite between parties, the
symbols play a key role by identifying
the parties. Slogans, placards, appeals
4
all invoke the symbols and not the
candidates. In fact, the voters are asked
to vote for this symbol or that symbol.
The Election Commission can allot
symbols as desired by parties and
candidates but, in a case such as this, it
has to decide who is to have which
symbol without, of course, putting a
hurdle in the way of any party.”
The objections of the respondents that the
proper remedy for the petitioner shall be an Election
Petition, more particularly in view of petitioner nos. 1
and 3 having availed that remedy for the same election
is one aspect of the matter. The official laxity making a
mockery of the whole election and treating the whole
process with utmost casualness by the Block
Development Officer is another aspect of the matter.
In the nature of the controversy, when the
election symbol of the petitioner was changed at the
last moment, his remedy shall appropriately lie in an
Election Petition.
Insofar as the Block Development Officer is
concerned, there can be no doubt that he by his
negligent conduct scuttled the elections to the P.A.C.S.
generating unwarranted litigations when those who
may have been elected in accordance with law are
frittering their time in litigation and those who were
elected are forced to face litigation. In both events, the
work of the P.A.C.S. suffers. Finances, time and
5
manhours are being fettered away, whether of the
State or individual. The responsibility shall lie with the
Block Development Officer alone.
The Secretary, Rural Development, shall
examine the conduct of the Block Development Officer
concerned, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey and take such
appropriate administrative action as he may deem fit
and proper to ensure that functionaries of the
Government while acting on behalf of the Government
behave responsibly, keeping in mind that as
Government servants, they are also individually
accountable for their acts and the Government is not
liable for their negligent acts. The liability is individual
and not that of the Government.
Any Election Petition filed by the petitioner,
needless to say has to be decided on its own merits
expeditiously in accordance with law in a manner so
that keeping in mind, the tenure, The Election Petition
is not rendered infructuous.
The application stands disposed.
P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)