Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1384 (JHR)

Rambhajan Sah v. State of Jharkhand

2022-12-09

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda in Election Petition No. 04/2022, whereby on complaint filed by the respondent no. 5 regarding irregularities committed in counting process of election of Mukhiya in Nawdiha Panchayat, the respondent no. 3 has directed the Block Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Poraiyahat to obtain entire ballot papers in relation to the said election and to ensure production of the same before the Court of the respondent no. 3 by 10.12.2022 at 12:00 clock for perusal without considering the fact that the respondent no. 3 being the authorized officer for entertaining the election petition, should not have allowed to collect the evidence by issuing the impugned direction, rather the onus lies upon the complainant to substantiate the allegation of irregularities committed in the election process of Mukhiya of Nawdiha Panchayat. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3 to decide the Election Petition strictly in terms with Section 152 and 153 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. The petitioner has also prayed for staying the further proceeding in Election Petition No. 04/2022, till the issue raised in the instant writ petition is finally decided by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an interlocutory order passed by the respondent no. 3 in Election Petition No. 04/2022. 3. In the case of “N.T. Veluswami Thevar Vs. G. Raja Nainar & Ors.” reported in 1959 Supp (1) SCR 623, a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “17. As the question has also been raised as to the propriety of interfering in writ petitions under Article 226 with interlocutory orders passed in the course of an enquiry before the Election Tribunal, we shall express our opinion thereon. The jurisdiction of the High court to issue writs against orders of the Tribunal is undoubted; but then, it is well settled that where there is another remedy provided, the Court may properly exercise its discretion in declining to interfere under Article 226. The jurisdiction of the High court to issue writs against orders of the Tribunal is undoubted; but then, it is well settled that where there is another remedy provided, the Court may properly exercise its discretion in declining to interfere under Article 226. It should be remembered that under the election law as it stood prior to the amendment in 1956, election petitions were dismissed on preliminary grounds and the correctness of the decision was challenged in applications under Article 226 and in further appeals to this Court, with the result that by the time the matter was finally decided, the life of the legislatures for which the election was held would have itself very nearly come to an end, thus rendering the proceedings infructuous. A signal example of a case of this kind is to be found in the decision reported in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi v. Brijial Nandlal Biyani [ (1955) 2 SCR 428 ]. It is to remedy this defect that the legislature has now amended the law by providing a right of appeal against a decision of the Tribunal to the High Court under Section 116-A, and its intention is obviously that proceedings before the Tribunal should go on with expedition and without interruption, and that any error in its decision should be set right in an appeal under that section. In this view, it would be a proper exercise of discretion under Article 226 to decline to interfere with interlocutory orders. 4. Thus, the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with interlocutory orders passed by an Election Tribunal as the same will also cause delay in disposal of the election case. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which in an interlocutory one passed during the pendency of election petition. It is, however, observed that if the petitioner finds himself aggrieved with the final outcome of the Election Petition No. 04/2022, he is at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the same taking all the points as raised at this stage. It goes without saying that the respondent no. 3, who is in seisin of Election Petition No. 4/2022, is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the provision of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 as well as Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable with aforesaid liberty and observation.