SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Pat) 53

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.K.Choudhary and G.N.Prasad JJ.
Udai Bhan Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 615 of 1961 ;
Decided On : APRIL 27, 1965

A person who has been dismissed from the service of a local authority is disqualified from being elected as a Mukhiya under Section 79(1) (g) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

Headnote:

ELECTION - DISQUALIFICATION - NOMINATION PAPER - REJECTION - CANDIDATE DISMISSED FROM SERVICE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY - DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 79(1) (G) OF THE BIHAR PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1947 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 79(1) (E) AND (G) - CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO PROVISIONS - NO CONFLICT - PROVISIONS TO BE READ TOGETHER - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE OF MUNICIPALITY - DISQUALIFICATION UNDER RULE 6(B) (V) OF THE BIHAR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTION PETITIONS RULES - CANDIDATE DISQUALIFIED FOR ELECTION AS MUKHIYA UNDER SECTION 79(1) (G) OF THE ACT - NOMINATION PAPER RIGHTLY REJECTED.

Fact of the Case:

Respondent No. 3 filed nomination papers for the office of Mukhiya of Harhachcha Gram Panchayat. His nomination was rejected by the Elections Officer on the ground that he was a disqualified candidate. Respondent No. 3 filed an objection before the Elections Officer and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but both rejected his objection. He then filed an election petition before the Deputy Collector-Election Tribunal, which set aside the petitioner's election. The petitioner filed a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that respondent No. 3 was disqualified from filing his nomination paper for the office of Mukhiya. The court interpreted Section 79(1) (e) and (g) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and found that there was no conflict between the two provisions. The court held that respondent No. 3 was disqualified under Section 79(1) (g) of the Act because he had been dismissed from the service of the Darbhanga Municipality, which was a local authority.

Issues: Whether respondent No. 3 was disqualified from filing his nomination paper for the office of Mukhiya.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that respondent No. 3 was disqualified under Section 79(1) (g) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, because he had been dismissed from the service of the Darbhanga Municipality, which was a local authority. The court interpreted Section 79(1) (e) and (g) of the Act and found that there was no conflict between the two provisions. The court also held that respondent No. 3 was disqualified under Rule 6(b) (v) of the Bihar Municipal Elections and Election Petitions Rules, which disqualifies a person from being a candidate for election as a commissioner of a municipality if he is a dismissed servant of the Government or a dismissed employee of a local authority.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, set aside the order of the Election Tribunal, and held that respondent No. 3 was disqualified from filing his nomination paper for the office of Mukhiya.

Judgment

1. Four nomination papers were filed for the office of Mukhiya of Harhachcha Gram Panchayat in the district of Darbhanga, out of which the nomination papers of respondent No. 3 and one other candidate, with whom we are not concerned in the present application, were rejected, and one of the candidates withdrew his nomination paper. The petitioner was, accordingly, declared elected uncontested as Mukhiya of that Gram Panchayat. On the 11th of March, 1960, respondent No. 3 filed an objection before the Elections Officer, namely, the Block Development Officer of Bahera, but his objection was rejected by him. He then filed Objection under Rule 28(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules before the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate. Darbhanga, but that objection was also rejected on the 17th of March, 1960.

On the 6th of April, 1960, respondent No. 3 filed an election petition under Rule 72(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules before the Deputy Collector-Election Tribunal. Since, however, the impugned order was passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, an officer superior in rank to the Deputy Collector-Election Tribunal, the election petition was transferred to the additional Collector-Election Tribunal, Darhltanga, for disposal. Two objections were raised on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the election petition, namely, (i) that the election petition was time-barred, and (ii) that the nomination of respondent No. 3 had been rightly rejected, as he was a disqualified candidate, The Election Tribunal held that, in view of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, the election petition was within time, and that respondent No. 3 was not disqualified and his nomination paper had been wrongly rejected. Consequently, the election of the petitioner was set aside. Being thus aggrieved, he has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. This case came up lor hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, and the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there is a clear conflict between the provisions of Section 79(1) (c) and 79(1) (g) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He, therefore, referred the case to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision.

3. Mr. Jha, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the finding of the Election Tribunal that respondent No. 3 was not a disqualified candidate is wrong in law, inasmuch as the Election Tribunal did not examine the disqualification mentioned in Section 79(1) (g) of the Act and proceeded to decide the question only on the disqualification mentioned in Section 79(1) (e) of the Act. His contention is that under Section 79(1) (g) respondent No. 3 was disqualified and his nomination paper was rightlv rejected by the Elections Officer.

4. In order to appreciate the above argument, it may, perhaps, have to be noticed that respondent No. 3 was employed in the service of the Darbhanga Muncipality and he was dismissed from service on account of his having committed forgery with respect to certain papers. On this ground, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he had become disqualified for being a candidate for the office of Mukhiya. The argument is well-founded "and must prevail.

5. Rule 6 (b) (v) of the Bihar Municipal Elections and Election Petitions Rules lays down that a person shall be disqualified for being a candidate for election as a commissioner if he is a dismissed servant of the Government or a dismissed employee of a local body. Sec. 4 (3) of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act stales that local authority shall mean a municipal committee. District Board of any other authority entrusted by the Government with, or legally entitled to the control or management of a municipal fund. In the Act itself, sec. 2 (i) defines "Local authority" to mean,

"a Municipal Committee, district hoard of any other authority entrusted by the Government with or legally entitled to, the control or management of a m




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top