SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Kumar Nishant – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(C) No 2185 of 2022
Decided on : 07-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Niranjan Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate

Headnote:

Election - Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 - Section 66(5) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, Rule 51(1) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001, Indian Penal Code, Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 66(5) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, and Rule 51(1) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001, along with the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court highlighted the wide connotation of 'irregularities' under Section 66(5) and the conditions for declaring a candidate elected under Rule 51(1), emphasizing the importance of free and fair elections and the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the order countermanding the election of a constituency. The petitioner claimed to be the only valid candidate for the constituency and sought to be declared elected uncontested. Allegations of illegal detention and threats were made against the petitioner, leading to an FIR being lodged. The State Election Commission countermanded the election based on the allegations.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the State Election Commission's order to countermand the election. The court emphasized the wide connotation of 'irregularities' under Section 66(5) and the conditions for declaring a candidate elected under Rule 51(1), highlighting the importance of free and fair elections and the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the State Election Commission's order to countermand the election, the interpretation of Section 66(5) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, and the applicability of Rule 51(1) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Election Commission's exercise of power under Section 66(5) of the Act was in conformity with the law, emphasizing the wide connotation of 'irregularities' and the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The court also emphasized the conditions for declaring a candidate elected under Rule 51(1) of the Rules, highlighting the importance of free and fair elections.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the State Election Commission's order to countermand the election of the constituency.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the State Election Commissioner, Jharkhand (the respondent no. 2), copy of which has been communicated to different authorities vide memo no. 1049 dated 06.05.2022 under the signature of the Secretary, State Election Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) whereby the respondent no. 2 while exercising the power conferred under Section 66(5) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 (in short the Act, 2001), has countermanded the election process of XVI, Ramgarh Zila Parishad Territorial Constituency No.5, Patratu (hereinafter to be referred as “the said constituency”) . Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the Returning Officer (the respondent no.5) to declare the petitioner as a duly elected candidate of Zila Parishad from the said Constituency in view of the provisions as contained in rule 51(1) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 (in short the “Rules, 2001”) as the petitioner was the only candidate who filed nomination for the said constituency which was found valid in scrutiny.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Election Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 4) published a programme by way of public notice with respect to three-tier Panchayat (General) Election, 2022 for constitution of Ramgarh Zila Parishad and the detailed schedule of election to elect members of the said constituency was as follows :-

    Date of publication of notification:- 25.04.2022

Last date of filing of nomination papers:- 02.05.2022

Date fixed for scrutiny of nomination Papers:- 04/05.05.2022

Date of withdrawal of nomination papers:- 06/07.05.2022

Date of allotment of symbols :- 09.05.2022

Date of voting:- 24.05.2022

Date of counting:- 31.05.2022

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed his nomination papers before the respondent no.5 to contest the election for the said constituency. Some other persons had also purchased nomination papers to contest the said election, however they failed to submit their nomination papers till the last date and time fixed for filing of the same. During the process of scrutiny, the petitioner’s nomination paper having been found valid was accepted by the respondent no.5. Since there was no other candidate to contest the election and that the petitioner had not withdrawn his candidature till the last date and time fixed for withdrawal of candidature, he should have been declared elected uncontested by the respondent no. 5 immediately after 3.00 P.M. on 07.05.2022 in view of the provisions contained in rule- 51(1) of the Rules, 2001. However, the respondent no. 2, vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022, arbitrarily countermanded the election process of the said constituency.

4. It is also submitted that no complaint was received by any Officer, whether of the District Administration, State Administration or associated with conducting the election of the said constituency that any person intending to file his/her nomination paper to contest the election, was prevented from filing nomination paper. However, after filing of the nomination paper, the petitioner was called at Patratu Police Station on 02.05.2022 at about 9:30 p.m. by the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh whereupon he went there but was illegally detained by the Officer-in-Charge till 00:50 A.M. of 04.05.2022 despite the fact that he was not needed in connection with any criminal case. On the basis of self-statement of S.I. Shashi Prakash, Officer-in-Charge of Patratu Police Station, an F.I.R. being Patratu P.S. Case No. 76 of 2022 was lodged on 04.05.2022 at 00:50 A.M. for the offences under Sections 342/171(E)/171(F)/ 504/506/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 68A of the Act, 2001 and Section 123 (1) & (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short, “the Act, 1951”).

5. It is further submitted that one Kanchan

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top