An elector has the right to challenge an election dispute, but irregularities in the voter list alone are not sufficient to void an election. Material impact on the election result must be demonstrated.

Heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.013 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patna Division, Patna in Misc. Case No.9 of 2013 whereby the election case has been dismissed on grounds of lack of evidence and absence of locus of the petitioner to prefer such election dispute.

3. Mr. Mishra has appeared to advance the case of the petitioner to submit that whereas in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Bihar State Election Authority Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) an election dispute can be raised either by a candidate or an electorate and in so far as the issue of lack of evidence to confirm the invalid voters list is concerned, the same is manifest from the voters list present at Annexure-2 which apparently consists of such persons who are resident of the district of Nalanda and not the operative district of the society which has its headquarter at Patna. He submits that although the petitioner was not a candidate in the election but she did file her objection against the voters list and since in the meanwhile the election had been notified and the objection had not been disposed of that she moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No.22491 of 2012 and a bench of this Court without interfering with the election so notified disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to question the election on grounds so taken in accordance with law. It is pursuant to the liberty so granted by this Court that the election dispute in question has been preferred and has been rejected and the petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court.

4. As I have observed, hereinabove, the election case has been rejected on twin grounds namely;

(a) absence of locus; and

(b) absence of evidence to support the claim.

5. Mr. Mishra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while supporting the claim of the petitioner to raise an election dispute even if she is not a candidate has simply referred to Section 10 of the Act and to submit that it can be a candidate or the electorate who can prefer such dispute.

6. Considering the provisions of Section 10 of the Act in the backdrop of the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, I find no bar for an elector to challenge the election on any of the grounds so available under Section 12 of the Act and to that extent I agree with the contentions of Mr. Mishra that the petitioner could not have been non-suited on grounds of absence of locus.

7. This would bring to this Court second issue raised regarding illegal voter list. According to Mr. Mishra the evidence that the voter list was infracted was on record and even the objections had been raised but not decided by the election officer which had infracted the elections so as fit to be declared void under Section 12(1)(d)(iv) of the Act inasmuch as it is founded on an irregular voters list.

8. Mr. Mishra in support of his arguments has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1980 SC 1612 (Bar Council of Delhi And Others Versus Surjeet Singh and Others)

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.

10. The petitioner did not contest the election yet seeks a declaration to hold the election void on grounds of irregularity in the voter list which as per the petitioner, has not been prepared in violation of the legal provisions. The petitioner may be right and may be some infirmities have crept into the voter list but then the issue for consideration is whether an election is to be declared void on mere grounds of infirmities in the voter list. The law is well settled on the issue and irregular voter list simplicitor cannot be a ground for such declaration. The order impugned reflects that even when the petitioner was making complaint regarding dead persons voting and that voters were residents of different districts, yet