Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 895 (PAT)

Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-06-29

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
Order Heard counsel for the petitioner, the State Election Commission and the respondent no. 7. 2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the State Election Commission and to restore the order dated 8.10.2011 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Election Officer, Patna in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2011. 3. The facts are that the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 stood for the post of Pramukh. The total number of votes polled was 12 in numbers. The petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 7 supposedly got six votes each. Both the contesting candidates agreed that the matter should be decided by the lottery system, on the basis of which, a certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner as Prakhand Pramukh by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dehri, Rohtas. After the petitioner was declared as the returning candidate, a complaint was filed before the District Magistrate, Sasaram. The District Magistrate, Sasaram upheld the process by which the petitioner was declared as the returning candidate for the post of Pramukh. The reasons given by the District Magistrate is that the 'X' mark which was to be placed against the name of the candidates was tilted in favour of the petitioner. 4. The respondent no. 7 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, moved before the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission called for the records and found that the cross mark was placed in the middle between the name of the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and not in the column where the cross mark ought to have been placed and as such rejected the vote in question which is at page 16 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that once the respondent no. 7 had agreed for the lottery system as per the provisions of Rule 98 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006, he could not have challenged the decision by filing a complaint. The only remedy avail- able to him was to challenge it by filing an election petition. 6. 7 had agreed for the lottery system as per the provisions of Rule 98 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006, he could not have challenged the decision by filing a complaint. The only remedy avail- able to him was to challenge it by filing an election petition. 6. Having regard to the facts of this case, it is apparent on perusal of Paripatra 26, particularly with respect to the last page of Annexure-A series that the cross mark is in between the name of petitioner and the respondent no. 7. The fact that the cross mark was a quarter of a centimeter towards the box of Kameshwar Singh, cannot be treated to a vote polled in favour of the petitioner. 7. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Election Commission. 8. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.