Mukesh Kumar Pandey vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Pat) 380

RAJENDRA MENON, ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
Mukesh Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants : M/s P.K.Shahi, S.B.K. Mangalam, Ravi Ranjan.
For State Election Comm : M/s Amit Shrivastava, Girish Pandey.
For the State : Mr. Patanjali Rishi.
For Pvt. Resp 7 to 12 : M/s Y.V. Giri, S.P. Srivastava, Amit Bhushan.

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.:–A group of six Councilors on one side outweighed the group of 24 Councilors and Pramukh and Up-Pramukh were elected from amongst the group of 6 uncontested is the background of the present appeal.

2. The 24 writ petitioners are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the Writ Court dated 19.6.2017 passed in CWJC No. 15373 of 2016 whereby the Writ Court declined to interfere with the election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Kanti, Muzaffarpur and upheld the order of the District Magistrate dated 18.8.2016 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 1(Misc.) of 2016-17 whereby the learned District Magistrate rejected the petition filed by the appellants for quashing of the proceedings of the meeting dated 29.6.2016 in which only 6 members were present and elected the Respondent No. 7.

3. Sri Mukhtar Ahmed Lone as Pramukh and Respondent No. 8 Sri Bipin Jha as Up-Pramukh.

4. The foundational fact for adjudication of the present Letters Patent Appeal lies in a narrow compass. There are 30 members in the Panchay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(Pat) 380

RAJENDRA MENON, ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAYMukesh Kumar Pandey – AppellantVersusState of Bihar – Respondent

RAJENDRA MENON, ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
Mukesh Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent