1.This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 25.4.2009, passed by the Sub-Judge-1, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Case No. Election 2/07, filed on behalf of Sanju Kumari. Sanju Kumari stood for election for the post of a Ward Member in the Biharsharif Municipal Corporation Elections held in the year 2007. The ground for challenge of the said election is that it is alleged that 800 voters of Ward No. 39 have been shifted to Ward No. 37 which has caused tremendous prejudice to the petitioner as it was done at a belated stage after scrutiny of the nomination papers.

2. The facts are that the date of filing the nomination for the candidates was fixed in between 27.4.2007 to 5.5.2007. The scrutiny was to be held in between 6.5.2007 and 7.5.2007. It is alleged that the final voters list was varied and 800 voters were shifted to Ward No. 37 on 27.4.2007.

3. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-1. Annexure-1 is the draft voters list showing that there are 4081 voters of Ward No. 37. It is said that the said list was published on 27.4.2007. The counsel thereafter refers to Annexure-9 which is also a voters list published on 27.4.2007 showing that the total member of voters of Ward No. 37 are 4924. It has been argued vehemently that there was no occasion to publish the list on 27.4.2007 showing that there are only 4081 voters and on the same day publish another list showing the voters to be 4924. The voters of Ward No. 37 were taken out from Ward No. 39 and clubbed with the voters list of Ward No. 37. It is argued that any transportation of voters on the day of filing of nomination would render the entire election process illegal and it has to be set aside. It would appear from the records of the case and specifically the stand of the respondent no. 3 as well as the respondent no. 1, that certain objections were raised regarding voters list which shows that there were 4081 voters in Ward No. 37 of the Municipal Corporation. On the basis of the objection, an inquiry was made and the southern boundary as shown in the gazette notification no. 1 was found to be wrong due to clerical mistake. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif vide his letter dated 10.4.2007 sought permission from the Election Commission to rectify the clerical error in the northern boundary of Ward No. 39 and southern boundary of Ward No. 37. These letters are annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexures A,B and C. Thereafter a revised gazette no.28 dated 22.4.2007 regarding the delimitation of Ward Nos. 37 and 39 was published by which about 800 to 900 voters from Ward No. 39 were transposed in Ward No. 37 as per the boundary mentioned in the revised gazette. Regarding the common date 27.4.2007

which has been highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been stated that after submission of the report of the District Magistrate to the State Election Commission the header portion of electoral roll was printed as per programme given by the Commission in Annexure-X and the date of list publication was accordingly printed as 27.4.2007 having the same header, but the actual date of printing in both was not the same. Because of the computer the date was the same with respect to Annexures 1 and 9. It cannot be accepted by this Court that just because the date of the two lists was 27.4.2007, it should be inferred that there was some hanky panky in the publication of the voters list. This finding of the Court is because of the fact that the counter affidavit discloses the manner and the reasons which resulted in the transposition of the voters from one ward to the other.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 which deals with the procedure by which the electoral roll are prepared and Section 22 the procedure in which the electoral roll is corrected.

5. Sections 21 and 22 of the Representati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document