Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 364 (JHR)

Sudha Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-14

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The State respondents have filed counter affidavit. The private respondent, who has won the election, has also filed counter affidavit. The respondents have contested the writ petition on the ground that there is alternative remedy for preferring appeal against any order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. They have further submitted that learned Sub-Divisional Officer has considered the petition and also considered the provisions of law and has rightly rejected the petitioner's election petition. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition on the ground that there is alternative remedy for preferring appeal against any order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. They have further submitted that learned Sub-Divisional Officer has considered the petition and also considered the provisions of law and has rightly rejected the petitioner's election petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, which is in the form of endorsement in the margin of the first page of the said petition followed by a detailed order of the same date with the same purport. 7. On perusal of Chapter 13 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001, I find that there is an extensive procedure for dealing with the election petition and hearing and disposal thereof. Rule 113 of the said Rules, 2001 prescribes for hearing of the election petition in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It further prescribes for taking evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. No provision has been brought to my notice by the respondents which permits for such summary disposal of the election petition. Since the said Rule prescribes for hearing of election petition in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code, the election petition has to be heard and disposed of in accordance with the said procedure and not in any other manner. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 8.1.2011 passed in Election Petition No.06/2011 cannot sustain and is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda to deal with the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.