The court emphasized the necessity of due process and unimpeachable evidence in electoral disqualification cases, ruling that the Commission's failure to provide notice violated the petitioner's rights.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 13-09-2024 Heard Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 18090 of 2023 (Akbari Talak @ Akabri Talak vs the State of Bihar & ors.) and Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha who represents the petitioner in CWJC No. 14245 of 2023 (Ruhi Parveen @ Ruhi Praveen vs the State of Bihar & ors.)

(A) PRAYER:

2. The writ petition has been preferred by Akbari Talak @ Akabri Talak (CWJC No. 18090 of 2023) for following reliefs:

(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other similar writ in nature for partly quashing the order dated in part 16- 08-2023 passed in Case No. 72/2022 (Ruhi Pravin vs Akbari Talak) by Respondent State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna and further communicated under memo по.72/2022/2967 dated 16-08-2023 in as much as part "Kha" of the said order is concerned wherein while finding the allegation of concealing details of educational qualification in her biodata filed along with nomination paper, Respondent District Magistrate, Darbhanga has been directed to take legal action against the writ petitioner under section 125A(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006(for sake of brevity herein after to be referred as the Act, 2006) as also other relevant sections on the ground It said direction is thoroughly illegal and without jurisdiction;

(ii) for a declaration It unless the requirement of section 125A of the Act, 2006 is fulfilled the direction of imposition of penalty prescribed cannot be imposed;

(iii) for issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner is entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The reliefs sought for by Ruhi Parveen @ Ruhi Praveen (CWJC No. 14245 of 2023) read as follows:

(i) for quashing of the order dated 16.08.2023 contained in Memo No. 2967 dated 16.08.2023 to the extent of Part-Ka whereunder the State Election Commissioner (SEC) had refused to disqualify the Private Respondent cum elected Mukhiya on the ground of Learned section 136(1) (kha) of the Act. 2006 on the erroneous ground of absence of unimpeachable document ignoring the admitted position It the date of birth recorded on the basis of Aadhar Card could at best be a self declaration and not a definite document to declare the candidate as over 21 years of age and It fraudulent suppression of education related facts including the different date of birth in the school records since 2014 had been suppressed by the Private Respondent. The Petitioner further prays for an order of restrain against the private Respondent restraining and interdicting her from taking financial decision as a Mukhiya during the pendency of the Writ Application.

4. Since both the writ petitions arising out of order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna though with different prayers, this Court with the consent of the parties have taken up the cases together.

(B) PETITIONER’S CASE [Akbari Talak @

Akbari Talak:- (in C.W.J.C. No. 18090 of 2023)] 5. In the Panchayat election held in the year

2021, the writ petitioner, Akbari Talak @ Akabri Talak filed her nomination and having polled the highest number of votes was declared elected as the ‘Mukhiya’ of Khaisa-Jamalpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Darbhanga.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that no sooner she got elected, a complaint came to be filed by Ruhi Parveen @ Ruhi Praveen before the respondent State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the Commission’) wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was not of qualifying age of 21 years when she contested the election for the post of ‘Mukhiya’ of Khaisa Jamalpur Gram Panchayat and thus a prayer was made for her disqualification on the said ground.

7. Thus, the thrust of above complaint was about her age and an interference was sought for by the complainant which according to the petitioner was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of ‘the Commission’.

8. Based upon the said c