1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar- respondent no.4, whereby the Election Petition No.4 of 2016 filed by the respondent no.6 (Soni Kumari) has been allowed and the petitioner has been declared ineligible under section 152(1)(Gha)(i) of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 (in short ‘the Act, 2001’).

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner alongwith respondent nos.6 to 11 had contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of Mednidih Panchayat, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar held on 22.11.2015. The petitioner was declared successful in the said election. The respondent no.6 challenged the notification declaring the result of the petitioner as Mukhiya of Mednidih Panchayat under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Act, 2001 before the respondent no.4, which was registered as Misc. Petition (Election Petition) No.4/2016. The said election petition was finally allowed and the petitioner was declared ineligible on the ground that her name was not in the voter list of panchayat election.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute of eligibility as per rule 124 of Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Rules, 2001 (in short ‘Rules, 2001’) rather the said power is vested with Munsif. The present dispute was also raised at the time of nomination and the same was already clarified by the Returning Officer. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no.198, however, her husband’s name was wrongly typed as Pradeep Yadav instead of Rakesh Jha. The respondent no.6 failed to establish that the name of the petitioner was appearing at any other place. On the contrary, the petitioner produced several documents before the respondent no.4 in support of the contention that her name was appearing in the voter list of Mednidih Panchayat. It is also submitted that rule 113 of the Rules, 2001 specifically provides that while hearing the election petition, the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) has to be followed, however, the respondent no.4 did not follow the provision of the CPC while adjudicating the case of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 04.10.2017 has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing and thus the same also violates the principles of natural justice. The name of the petitioner was appearing in all the voter lists prepared from time to time, as would be apparent from the voter lists provided to her under the Right to Information Act, 2005, except that, in the year 2015, there was a clerical mistake in her husband’s name in the voter list which was subsequently rectified. It is further submitted that the in-laws of the petitioner are the Jamabandi raiyats of village - Dahuwa, P.S Mohanpur, District - Deoghar and the names of the entire family members are running in the voter list since long. The respondent no. 4, however, proceeded to adjudicate the election petition in an arbitrary manner without following the Rules, 2001 as well as the procedure laid down under the Act, 2001.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission submits that under the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution of India read with the Act, 2001, the State Election Commission has been assigned duties of conducting elections for various posts of Panchayat. After the elections are over, it becomes functus officio having no role in the proceedings initiated against one or the other candidate by way of election petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the respondent no. 4 has acted according to law and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It is further submitted that a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2015 of 2017 filed by the respondent no.10 is still pending adjudicatio