2025 Supreme(Pat) 1293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
Kaushmi Devi @ Kousami Devi W/o Shri Suresh Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1682 of 2025
Decided On : 26-06-2025

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.

Headnote:

Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Sections 18(1)(m) and 18(2) – Disqualification from holding duly elected post of Deputy Chief Councillor, Gaya Nagar Parishad – Birth of third child of petitioner – Whenever objection as to maintainability of complaint is seriously questioned on any ground whatsoever including ground that allegations levelled in complaint are not supported by or based upon any unimpeachable material accompanied with complaint, same must be decided at threshold as a preliminary issue before embarking on merits – Complaints which are in nature of disputing election but deliberately couched in a language so as to bring it within fold of Section 18(2), should be carefully examined by Respondent State Election Commission on its own and such complaints should not be entertained under Section 18(2) of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and should be relegated to filing of election petition before appropriate Civil Court – It is obligatory for Respondent Commission to first examine and enquire whether allegations levelled in complaint qualifies as a purely election dispute and only if it is found that dispute brought before it is not a purely election dispute, Commission should proceed to consider the same on the basis of unimpeachable materials – Issue relating to jurisdictional fact must be decided as a preliminary issue before embarking on merits of case. (Paras 14 and 15)

Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Sections 18(1)(m) and 18(2) – Disqualification from holding duly elected post of Deputy Chief Councillor, Gaya Nagar Parishad – Birth of third child of petitioner – Question of date of birth of third child of petitioner was under serious dispute and this could only have been decided on the basis of evidence – This disputed question of fact could not have been decided by Respondent Commission in a summary proceeding under Section 18(2) of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – If an authority gives finding on disputed question of fact then whether said finding is correct or not, becomes irrelevant, if authority concerned did not have jurisdiction to conduct proceeding and give such a finding – Only those findings can be upheld in law which are given pursuant to legal and valid exercise of power – Without deciding issue of jurisdictional fact, respondent Commission assumed jurisdiction and embarked on journey to decide disputed question of fact on merit – Such approach is unknown to law and impugned order cannot be sustained for failing to decide question of maintainability of complaint as a preliminary issue at threshold – It cannot be said that only losing candidate can file complaint under Section 18(2) of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – State Election Commission can suo motu initiate such a proceeding – Impugned order is flawed, patently illegal and without jurisdiction – Impugned order set aside and petitioner reinstated to post of Deputy Chief Councillor – Writ application allowed. (Paras 17, 18, 22, 24, 25 and 27)

Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Section 18(2) – Whenever a complaint is filed before State Election Commission, Commission of its own should first examine maintainability of same as a preliminary issue and only thereafter, if it is found to be maintainable, should respondent Commission proceed to decide the same within scope available to it in law – Unimpeachable material would mean such materials/evidences produced by complaint in support of allegations levelled in complaint which cannot be impeached and/or which cannot be doubted or disputed by anyone – The moment something produced as evidence along with complaint is required to be validated/established on the basis of further collection of evidence, then evidence produced or accompanied with complaint does not qualify as unimpeachable evidence/material – Existence of grassroots democracy is precious and should not be allowed to be assaulted or attacked on the basis of a frivolous complaint, not maintainable in law. (Paras 23 and 26)