IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the limitation period for filing election petitions under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is mandatory and cannot be extended or condoned, as there are no provisions allowing for such exceptions.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner who had unsuccessfully contested the Gram Panchayat Election, 2021for the post of Mukhiya from Ratni Faridpur Gram Panchayat Election, which was held on 08.10.2021 filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Election Petition Case No. 25 of 2021 by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Election Tribunal Jehanabad whereby and whereunder the election petition has been dismissed on the point of admission being time barred.

3. The petitioner further sought a direction upon the Election Tribunal, Jehanabad to adjudicate the election petition on its own merit and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

4. The only point for consideration which has been posed before this Court is with regard to the applicability of Limitation Act to the proceeding relating to election dispute or as to whether the point of limitation shall be counted with effect from the date when the cause of action has arisen or shall be guided by the Rule 106 of the Bihar Panchayati Election Rules, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as Rule, 2006), which prescribes that an election petition against any elected candidate may be filed under Section 137 of the Act before the prescribed Court of law within 30 days from the date of declaration of the election result.

5. In order to make proper appreciation of the issue, this Court deems it apt to give the short matrix of the case, as gleaned from the record.

6. Admittedly, the election for the post of Mukhiya was held on 08.10.2021 along with the other posts of Panchayat Samiti Member, Ward Member, Sarpanch and Panch. The counting was done together on 10.10.2021 and the result was also announced on 10.10.2021, itself.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the date of counting, the voter turn out report was published which reveals that at the Booth No. 127 total 423 votes were polled but for the post of Mukhiya only 323 votes were counted. Though for other posts 423 votes were counted. The petitioner, who was present in the counting raised objection, but the same was not taken to notice thus, he filed a written objection before the Block Development Officer cum Block Returning Officer, Ratni pointing out the corrupt practice in counting and totalling the votes.

8. Despite the objection raised, as noted above, when no action was taken, the petitioner filed another application before the Secretary, State Election Commission highlighting the corrupt practice adopted by the authority concern in counting of votes and manipulations of number of votes, resulting into declaration of respondent no. 6 as successful candidate for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Ratni Faridpur. Certain other irregularities were highlighted by the petitioner, which in the submission of the petitioner was unimpeachable in character thus, in the light of the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Rajani Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 673, the petitioner filed a complaint before the State Election Commission on 19.10.2021 for declaring the Gram Panchayat Election 2021 for the post of Mukhiya, null and void.

9. Having found no response at the level of State Election Commission, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 18740 of 2021 seeking a direction upon the State Election Commission for adjudication of the complaint. The writ petition stood dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 30.11.2021.

10. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter, he got a letter vide Memo No. 2157 dated 13.12.2021 issued by the Returning Officer (Panchayat) cum Block Development Officer Ratni Faridpur stating therein, that necessary correction on online portal has been done. After issuance of the Memo No. 2157 dated 13.12.2021, prima facie, the official respondent accepted their mistakes showing manipulation in counting of the votes depicting corrupt practice and, as such, a cause of action has arisen.