Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1598 (JHR)

Mahadeo Das v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-13

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of quo warranto to declare the election of respondent no. 4 as illegal since he was not eligible to hold the post of Member, District Board, to which, he has been elected in the election conducted in the year 2015. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 4 has been elected as a Member of the District Board, which has been assailed by the petitioner by filing writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 2845 of 2011 on the ground that although he has contested and elected from the area, which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate but on the ground of commission of forgery by getting caste certificate of scheduled caste category, however, during the pendecny of the writ petition since the tenure of the election conducted has expired therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous, hence disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2017 granting liberty to agitate the fresh election of the respondent no. 4, is so advised, by way of a fresh cause of action in an appropriate proceeding. 3. The petitioner has agitated the ground by referring to the enquiry conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad dated 28.10.2015 whereby the opinion has been expressed by the said authority that the petitioner does not belong to Ghatwar caste and as such he is not under the Scheduled Caste category and after the said finding the same has been brought to the notice of the competent authority that when the Deputy Commissioner has declared the election of the respondent no. 4 to be illegal and in consequence thereof, he has been declared eligible for the said election but having no action on the said declaration, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to learned Sr. S.C. III, Ms. Aakansha Mittal, appearing for respondent no. 5 as also Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, appearing for respondent no. 4 has jointly submitted by making reference of the provision of Section 151, 152, 153 and 154 of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001, that the petitioner has prayed for declaring respondent no. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to learned Sr. S.C. III, Ms. Aakansha Mittal, appearing for respondent no. 5 as also Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, appearing for respondent no. 4 has jointly submitted by making reference of the provision of Section 151, 152, 153 and 154 of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001, that the petitioner has prayed for declaring respondent no. 4 as ineligible for the election but once the election has been conducted and concluded, writ petition will not lie rather election petition is required to be filed as per the provision made under Section 151 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 2001. 5. This Court after appreciating the aforesaid argument and taking into consideration the fact as well as legal position is not in disagreement with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents for the reason that it is not in dispute that before initiation of election if one of the ineligible or any of them participating in the election comes to Court before election has been conducted, writ Court is supposed to entertain the writ petition, but once the election is concluded, it will not be proper for the writ court to adjudicate the matter, as adjudication will depend upon various aspects to be dealt with by the adjudicatory authority by appreciating evidence to be led by the respective parties in that regard and that is the reason the provision has been carved out under the Panchayati Raj Act under Section 151 of the Act that in case of any election, an Election Petition is required to be filed on the ground as stipulated under Section 152 or 153 or 154 of the said provision. 6. In view thereof, this Court refrains itself from adjudicating the issues under the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason aforesaid. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to search out remedy for adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law.