Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Kaushmi Devi @ Kousami Devi W/o Shri Suresh Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to disqualification order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability of the complaint (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent's submission on evidence and maintainability (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. jurisdictional findings and observations regarding complaint (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. importance of unimpeachable evidence (Para 13) |
| 6. rights of the parties and locus standi in complaints (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. regulations on collection of evidence by the election commission (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. final decision on disqualification and reinstatement (Para 24 , 25) |
| 9. caution against frivolous complaints and procedural directives (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure-P-4) passed in Case No. 15 of 2023 (Ashok Kumar Manjhi vs. Kaushmi Devi & Ors.) by the respondent State Election Commission, which has been further communicated vide Memo No.15 of 2023 /4364 dated 17.12.2024, by which the Respondent State Election Commission, in purported exercise of power under Section 18(2) of the BIHAR MUNICIPAL ACT
A State Election Commission must address the maintainability of complaints regarding disqualifications as a preliminary issue before delving into merits, to ensure valid exercise of jurisdiction.
The decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee regarding caste status is considered final and unimpeachable unless set aside by a competent court, and the State Election Commission can act on such find....
The court upheld the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2018, affirming the State Election Commission's authority to remove elected officials for disqualifications, aligning with legislative competen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the timely submission of election expenses and the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner in setting aside the District Collector's disqualifi....
The court affirmed the legislative authority of the Election Commission to remove elected officials for disqualifications and established the burden of proof for authenticity rests on the individual.
Complaints regarding pre-election disqualification must be reviewed under Section 58 of the Act, not Section 28(13).
The availability of alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction when there is a violation of natural justice or when the decision-making process is without jurisdiction.
The Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an Election O.P. filed under Sec. 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to disprove ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
