JUDGMENT :

Shivaji Pandey, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking relief for quashing the order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Respondent No. 5 in Case No. 30 of 2019 by which the petitioner has been declared unsuited on account of violation of Section 18(1)(k) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Municipal Act') as it has been recorded that the petitioner did not pay all the taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election was held.

3. The short fact of this case is that the election of Ara Municipal Corporation was conducted in the year 2017 in which the petitioner filed her nomination paper on 25.4.2017 for the post of Ward Councilor from the Ward No. 44 which was accepted, fought the election, declared elected as Councilor on 23.5.2017. She also filed her nomination for the post of Mayor of Ara Municipal Corporation on 9.6.2017, was elected on the post but, after a while, two independent persons of the locality, namely, Santosh Kumar and Abhay Kumar Pandey filed their respective complaint to the Bihar Election Commission, Respondent no. 5. The complaint of Santosh Kumar was not under consideration before the Bihar Election Commission rather the complaint of Abhay Kumar Pandey, who filed complaints on two occasions, was deliberated, wherein took a plea that the petitioner suppressing the material fact and without making payment of up-to-date municipal rent, filed her nomination paper and was elected accordingly.

4. In the first complaint dated 8.11.2019 (Annexure-2), he has stated that as per Section 18(1)(k) of the Bihar Municipal Act, deals with violation to deposit all taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election was held, has earned disqualification, giving example that the petitioner has an ancestral house in holding no. 153 having an area of 3566 Sq.ft. but, she has not mentioned in the nomination paper. Secondly, her husband Sunil Kumar and family are running a business establishment in the name and style of Pratap International School standing in holding no. 205/A having an area of 8894 Sq.ft. but, the valuation of the property was not done nor obtained the "No Objection Certificate" from the Municipal Corporation, Ara. She did not mention in the detail of this property in the nomination paper whereas the school is running in the name of Lalti Devi Foundation since 2014. In the complaint petition, it has been stated, the holding tax of the aforesaid building is being paid from the financial year 2017-18 onward which proves that Sunil Kumar of ward no. 44 by adopting wrong method running the school without payment of municipal tax which violates Section 18 of the Municipal Corporation Act. He has also stated in the complaint petition that she is one of the members of Lalti Devi Foundation.

5. Third example has been given that the holding no. 232 which is known as Pratap Market of which the "No Objection Certificate" was obtained but, the information obtained from the office of Ara Municipality indicates that the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,87,301/- still pending against the premises of which the demand notice has been issued. She has obtained the "No Objection Certificate" illegally without making payment of the entire municipal taxes. Forth instance has been shown that in ward no. 44, the land measuring 16.25 decimal having area 6400 Sq.ft. belongs to the petitioner, of which, neither holding number has been shown nor obtained the "No Objection Certificate" of the said property. It has further been mentioned that she has not given the details of holding no. 182 in her Nomination Paper of which neither "No Objection Certificate" was obtained nor has mentioned in the nomination paper. It has further been mentioned that the reports which have been obtained with respect to the compl