The central legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of disqualification under Section 18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 is limited and summary in nature, and can only be based on indisputable material inviting disqualification.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 9.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 16861 of 2013. The appellant figured as respondent no.8 in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed against the order dated 7.8.2013 passed by the State Election Commissioner in Case No. 2 of 2013 through which the election of the first respondent herein, as Councillor of Patna Municipal Corporation was set aside. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and has set aside the order of the learned Election Commissioner.

2. The brief facts pertaining to the case is as follows.

3. The election to the Patna Municipal Corporation was held during the year 2012. Respondents 1 and 8 herein, and certain others then filed nomination and the 1st respondent was declared elected.

4. The appellant filed Election Case No. 2 of 2013 before the State Election Commissioner, the 2nd respondent, under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’) with a prayer to disqualify the 1st respondent. The ground pleaded by the appellant was that the 1st respondent failed to pay holding tax in respect of properties held by her. It was stated that the grandfather of the husband of the respondent held such items and though they devolved upon the father of the husband of the respondent and thereafter the husband of the respondent, the holding tax was not paid. The genealogical table as well as particulars of the holdings were detailed in the election petition.

5. The petition was opposed by the 1st respondent. She pleaded that tax in respect of the properties that are in their enjoyment and ownership was paid and particulars furnished by the appellant are not correct. The 2nd respondent has referred the matter to the Municipal Commissioner and taking into account, the particulars furnished, bypassed the order dated 7.8.2013 disqualifying the 1st respondent. Challenging the said order the 1st respondent filed the writ petition and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Heard Shri Durganand Jha, learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Section 18 of the Act confers power upon the 2nd respondent for disqualifying an individual from being elected to the office of the Councillor or from holding such office after such election. The grounds on the basis of which disqualification can be ordered are mentioned in clauses (a) to (n) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. The one pleaded against the 1st respondent is referable to Section 18(1)(k) which reads, “if he has not paid all taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election is held”.

8. The record discloses that while filing nomination the 1st respondent enclosed a certificate dated 16.4.2012 issued by the Senior Deputy Collector, Incharge Revenue, of Municipal Corporation to the effect that there are no dues of holding tax or any other amounts against her, to the Corporation. Copies of the receipts through which the tax was paid were also enclosed, and no objection was raised at the time of scrutiny of nominations.

9. Normally, the election of a successful candidate can be challenged only by filing an election petition. Exercise to be undertaken by the 2nd respondent under Section 18 of the Act is very limited and summary in nature. It is only when there exists indisputable material that invites the disqualification, that the Commissioner can pass an order disqualifying the candidate of course after putting him or her on notice. For example, if the disqualification is sought on the ground that the concerned person has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind which attracts clause (e), the only basis on which the Election Commissioner can take a decision in this regard, is the order passed by such court. He cannot decide by himself, the mental condition of the candidate. Same is the case with the disqualification referable to various clauses.

10.