Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 376 (PAT)

Ram Dayal Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-04-26

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. 2. Petitioners have raised grievances that for the purpose of holding election to various wards for the respective Gram Panchayats booths have not been properly selected/located and while fixing the booths the concerned authority has not cared for the earlier convention or has not cared to see that the required building has already been constructed but the booth has not been located therein. 3. Convenience of the voters for the purposes of any election is an important aspect which must be kept in mind by the Commission or the authorities who are delegated with the power of determining the number and location of booths which is dependent largely upon issue of facts which the writ courts are seldom in a position to determine expeditiously or properly on the basis of evidence on affidavit. Such issues of facts should normally be raised before the concerned authorities or the Commission so that they may obtain reports, if there is any substance of the grievances raised and may see that play of democracy is encouraged by locating the booths properly and in sufficient number. For this purpose this court would like the Commission or its delegates to examine the grievances of the petitioners first. 4. Even otherwise, while looking into grievances raised through several writ petitions regarding illegal rejection or acceptance of nomination papers, by judgment and order dated 20th April, 2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4108/2006* (Babita Devi V/s. The State of Bihar) and other analogous cases, this court has accepted the preliminary objection raised on behalf of Commis- sion that no writ be issued at present because the elections have already been notified through notification dated 25.2.06 and have not come to an end as the results have not been declared so far. 5. Hence considering the aforesaid discussions as well as the preliminary objection of the Commission, these writ petitioners are disposed of. It is made clear that this court has not applied its mind to the merits of individual cases of the writ petitions and this order shall not affect, in any manner, the merit of their claims if they approach the Commission by raising the grievances which they have raised before this court. It is made clear that this court has not applied its mind to the merits of individual cases of the writ petitions and this order shall not affect, in any manner, the merit of their claims if they approach the Commission by raising the grievances which they have raised before this court. In that event the Commission will be free to decide the claims of the petitioners in accordance with law and its own guidelines governing such matters. The Commission will be the best Judge to decide whether entertaining claims of the petitioners at this stage will interfere with the election or not. If without interfering with the election process or postponing it unnecessarily the Commission can redress the grievances required to be redressed then the same will be done by the Commission without delay, preferably within one week. 6. It goes without saying that if petitioners are aggrieved by the outcome of the concerned election, they would be at liberty to avail judicial remedy through appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 7. Let a copy of this Order be given to learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission.