Patna High Court
Rinku Kumari vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal … on 26 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12857 of 2024
======================================================
Rinku Kumari W/o Amir Yadav, R/o Village- Lodipur, Tola- Naubatpur, P.S.
Khizarsarai, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The State Election Commission, Bihar through its Secretary, Sone Bhawan
Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Returning Officer, Neemchak Bathani,
Gaya.
5. The Executive Officer, Khizarsarai Nagarpanchayat.
6. Sobha Devi, W/o Dinesh Singh, R/o Village- Lodipur, P.O. and P.S.
Khizarsarai, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Mayuri, Advocate
For the State : Mr. AAG-7
For the Election Commission: Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2025
Heard Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. AAG-7, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ravi
Ranjan, learned counsel for the State Election Commission, Mr.
Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 and Mr.
D.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No. 6.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
2/23
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) Issuance of a direction, order or writ , including
a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order
dated 28.06.2024 passed by the State Election
Commissioner, Bihar whereby the petitioner has been
declared disqualified to hold the post of Chief
Councillor, Khizarsarai Nagar Panchayat by
operation of Clause (m) of Sub-section (1) of Section
18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including a
writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent Authorities to refrain from taking any
action in furtherance of the aforementioned order
passed by the Learned State Election Commission.
(iii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including
a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent Authorities to stay the operation of the
order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the State Election
Commission during the pendency of the instant writ
petition.
(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including a
writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent Authorities to compensate the petitioner
for the mental and physical harassment caused to him
as a result of the aforementioned order.
(v) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be
found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances
of the present case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
3/23
3. The State Government has notified the constitution
of the Khizarsarai Nagar Panchayat in the year 2022 and thereafter
election to the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat was notified.
The petitioner along with others filed their nomination and after
due scrutiny of the nomination papers, the petitioner was elected
as the Chief Councillor of Khizarsarai Nagar Panchayat. Learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no point of time
during the course of scrutiny of the nomination papers of the
petitioner or even during the conduct of election, any objection
was raised with regard to the nomination of the petitioner. After
the petitioner was declared elected, one Sobha Devi (Respondent
No. 6) has filed a complaint before the Station Election
Commission (Respondent No. 2) asserting that the petitioner was
disqualified to contest the election by virtue of Section 18(1)(m) of
the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 as she had more three surviving
children and at least one of them was born after the cut off date i.e.
05.04.2008
. The complaint of Respondent No. 6 led to the
registration of Case No. 12 of 2023 before the State Election
Commission. The Respondent No. 6 has challenged the
candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had
given birth to a child on 15.04.2008 in a Primary Health Centre,
Khizarsarai and she had got an incentive of Rs. 1400 under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
4/23
Government Scheme and apart from that the petitioner also gave
birth to a male child again in the year 2011 at her home and
thereafter she got a sterilization surgery which is registered as
42159 dated 27.09.2012 in the register of Primary Health Centre,
Khizarsarai.
4. The petitioner has replied to the aforesaid averments
by way of counter affidavit before the State Election Commission
stating therein that the petitioner had given birth to a daughter
namely, Shweta Kumari on 15.04.2008 and the said child
unfortunately passed away on 18.04.2008 ( i.e. three days after her
birth). The petitioner undoubtedly was entitled to an incentive
under the Government Scheme as the same is given to promote
institutional delivery and is contingent only upon the birth of a
child. The Respondent No. 6 also alleged that the petitioner
underwent surgery in 2012 but there is no record to suggest that a
child was born to her in the year 2011 without producing any proof
with the regard to the same.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has filed a counter affidavit before the State Election
Commission raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of
the complaint which was registered as Case No. 12 of 2023 on the
ground that the scope of the jurisdiction of the State Election
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
5/23
Commission under sub Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act has
been conclusively decided by a Full Bench of this Hon’ble High
Court in the case of Rajani Kumari Vs. The State Election
Commission & Others, reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 673 wherein
it has been held that while the Election Commission has the power
to consider the question of pre and post election disqualification of
a candidate, the Commission should refrain from deciding a case
which is purely in the nature of an election dispute and cannot be
decided without adducement of evidence by a competent court and
authority in accordance with law. Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that without inquiry the matter whether there are
unimpeachable materials to proceed and that the dispute is a purely
election dispute and only if it is not only then he shall proceed to
consider the same on the basis of unimpeachable material and it
has requested to State Election Commission ought not to have
entertained the complaint of Respondent No. 6 and the complaint
of Respondent No. 6 should have been relegated to an Appropriate
Court/Authority for adjudication of the dispute after taking
evidences. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
in similar case which involved disqualification on the ground of
third child born after the cut off date, a Division Bench of this
Court has decided in the case of Saryug Mochi Vs. The State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
6/23
Bihar and Others has held that before deciding the case it is
incumbent upon the State Election Commission to decide the issue
of maintainability of the case before it only then proceed to decide
the case and the petitioner has brought on the notice of Election
Commission about the aforesaid case (Saryug Mochi) but the
Commission has not followed the direction of the Hon’ble Court
and straight away entered into adjudication and from perusal of the
complaint petition, it would manifest that none of the documents
relied upon by the complainant which suggests that the petitioner
has been a third child after the cut off date i.e. 04.04.2008.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the scope of
the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission under sub-
section 2 of Section 18 of the Act has been conclusively decided
by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajani Kumari (supra)
while answering the question of whether the State Election
Commission will have the power to consider disqualification of a
candidate after election as such Election Commission is
constituted for conduct the elections, the Full Bench in the case of
Rajani Kumar (supra) has held in no uncertain terms, paragraph
nos. 181 and 184 which are as follows :
“181. It is further held that the State Election
Commissioner must not entertain pure election
disputes and whether a dispute brought before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
7/23Election Tribunal is a purely election dispute or not,
must be decided as a preliminary issue. The State
Election Commissioner has power to suo-motu take
notice of any disqualification of a returned candidate
either before or after the election. Disputed questions
of facts relating to disqualification cannot be
entertained by the State Election Commission and only
those cases where there are unimpeachable materials
before the State Election Commission should be
entertained by the Commission. In other cases where
issues can be determined only by a competent court of
law after leading evidence, the Commission would be
required to await the decision of a competent
court/tribunal constituted as a fact finding body which
is duly authorized by law to render a decision on the
issue.
184. We are in agreement that the State Election
Commission has got power under sub-section(2) of
Section 18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and sub-
section(2) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 to consider an issue of pre or post election
disqualification of a candidate subject to a caution
which we have pointed out in our judgments in respect
of a case which is in the nature of a purely election
dispute and then a matter which cannot be decided
without adducement of evidence by a competent court
and authority in accordance with law. The State
Election Commission shall entertain and consider the
‘disqualification’ issues on the basis of the
unimpeachable materials placed before him. Whether
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
8/23a complaint brought before the Commission either suo-
moto or by any other person, the Commission shall at
the first instance enquire whether it is a purely election
dispute and only when it is found that the dispute
brought before it is not a purely election dispute, the
Commission shall proceed to consider the same on the
basis of unimpeachable materials. Whenever a
disputed question of facts and a contentious issue is
brought before the Commission as a ground and basis
to render a candidate disqualified, the Commission
would be required to relegate the parties to a
competent court/tribunal or a fact finding body
competent to decide such contentious issues after
taking evidences and till such time the Commission
shall not take a decision on such complaint either suo-
moto or otherwise.”
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
on the basis of Rajani Kumari (supra), the High Court has
already decided the case in the case of Saryug Mochi and Ors.
Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. In view of the aforesaid
judgment, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has laid
down:
(i) The Election Commission has the power under sub-
section (2) of Section 18 of the Act to consider the
issue of pre or post election disqualification of a
candidate subject to a caution that a case which is in
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
9/23
the nature of purely election dispute, it cannot be
decided without adducement of evidence by a
competent court and authority in accordance with law.
(ii) The State Election Commission, shall, at the first
instance, inquire whether it is a purely election dispute
only and only when it is found that the dispute brought
before it is not a purely election dispute, the
Commission shall proceed to consider the same on the
basis of unimpeachable material.
(iii) Whenever a disputed question of facts and
contentious issue is brought before the Commission as
a ground and basis to render a candidate disqualified,
the Commission would be required to relegate the
parties to a competent court/tribunal or a fact finding
body competent to decide such contentious issued after
taking evidences and till such time the Commission
shall not take a decision on such complaint either suo
motu or otherwise.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
despite the aforesaid, the Commission had decided the matter on
the basis of the report of the Additional Collector, Gaya and apart
from that the age of the children of the petitioner was as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
10/23
1. Sweety Kumari, Date of Birth- 06.01.2025
2. Abshishek Kumar, Date of Birth- 22.02.2006
3. Abhimanyu Kumar, Date of Birth- 21.03.2007
8. It appears from the aforesaid that all the children was
born before the cut off date i.e. 05.04.2008 and without going to
the real fact of the case, the Commission has disqualified the
petitioner.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon a judgment in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State
of Punjab and Others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2524,
paragraph no. 6 which is quoted below :
“6. In a democracy governed by rule of law, once
elected to an office in a democratic institution, the
incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for
which he has been elected unless his election is set
aside by a prescribed procedure known to law. That a
returned candidate must hold and enjoy the office and
discharge the duties related there-with during the term
specified by the relevant enactment is a valuable
statutory right not only of the returned candidate but
also of the constituency or the electoral college which
he represents. Removal from such an office is a serious
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
11/23matter. It curtails the statutory term of the holder of the
office. A stigma is cast on the holder of the office in
view of certain allegations having been held proved
rendering him unworthy of holding the office which he
held. Therefore, a case of availability of a ground
squarely falling within S. 22 of the Act must be clearly
made out. A President may be removed from office by
the State Government, within the meaning of S. 22, on
the ground of “abuse of his powers” (of President),
inter alia. This is the phrase with which we are
concerned in the present case.”
10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon a judgment in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District
Collector, Raigad and Others, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407,
paragraph nos. 21 to 29, 31 to 37 which are quoted hereinbelow “
“21. The municipalities have been conferred
constitutional status by amending the Constitution vide
the 74th Amendment Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1-6-1993. The
municipalities have also been conferred various
powers under Article 243-B of the Constitution.
22. Amendment in the Constitution by adding Parts IX
and IX-A confers upon the local self-government a
complete autonomy on the basic democratic unit
unshackled from official control. Thus, exercise of any
power having effect of destroying the Constitutional
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
12/23institution besides being outrageous is dangerous to
the democratic set-up of this country. Therefore, an
elected official cannot be permitted to be removed
unceremoniously without following the procedure
prescribed by law, in violation of the provisions of
Article 21 of the Constitution, by the State by adopting
a casual approach and resorting to manipulations to
achieve ulterior purpose. The Court being the
custodian of law cannot tolerate any attempt to thwart
the institution.
23. The democratic set-up of the country has always
been recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution,
like other features e.g. supremacy of the Constitution,
rule of law, principle of separation of powers, power of
judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, etc. [Vide Kesavananda Bharati v. State
of Kerala, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Union
of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, Special
Reference No. 1 of 2002, In re (Gujarat Assembly
Election Matter) and Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India.]
24. It is not permissible to destroy any of the basic
features of the Constitution even by any form of
amendment, and therefore, it is beyond imagination
that it can be eroded by the executive on its whims
without any reason. The Constitution accords full faith
and credit to the act done by the executive in exercise
of its statutory powers, but they have a primary
responsibility to serve the nation and enlighten the
citizens to further strengthen a democratic State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
13/23
25. Public administration is responsible for the
effective implication of the rule of law and
constitutional commands which effectuate fairly the
objective standard set for adjudicating good
administrative decisions. However, wherever the
executive fails, the Courts come forward to strike down
an order passed by them passionately and to remove
arbitrariness and unreasonableness, for the reason
that the State by its illegal action becomes liable for
forfeiting the full faith and credit trusted with it. (Vide
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers’
Welfare Council v. State of U.P. and State of Punjab v.
G.S. Gill.)
26. “Basic” means the basis of a thing on which it
stands, and on the failure of which it falls. In
democracy all citizens have equal political rights.
Democracy means actual, active and effective exercise
of power by the people in this regard. It means
political participation of the people in running the
administration of the Government. It conveys the state
of affairs in which each citizen is assured of the right
of equal participation in the polity (See R.C. Poudyal
V. Union of India).
27. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India, this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 457-58, para
94).
“94. The trite saying that ‘democracy is for the
people, of the people and by the people has to
be remembered forever. In a democratic
republic, it is the will of the people that is
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
14/23paramount and becomes the basis of the
authority of the Government. The will is
expressed in periodic elections based on
universal adult suffrage held by means of
secret ballot. It is through the ballot that the
voter expresses his choice or preference for a
candidate. ‘Voting is formal expression of will
or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the
right on the subject or issue’, as observed by
[the] Court in Lily Thomas v. Speaker, Lok
Sabha, (SCC pp. 236-37, para 2) quoting from
Black’s Law Dictionary. The citizens of the
country are enabled to take part in the
government through their chosen
representatives. In a parliamentary democracy
like ours, the Government of the day is
responsible to the people through their elected
representatives. The elected representative acts
or is supposed to act as a live link between the
people and the Government. The people’s
representatives fill the role of lawmakers and
custodians of the Government. People look to
them for ventilation and redressal of their
grievances.”
28. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, this Court
considered the issue of removal of an elected office-
bearer and held that where the statutory provision has
very serious repercussions, it implicitly makes it
imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority
to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions. All
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
15/23
the safeguards and protections provided under the
statute have to be kept in mind while exercising such a
power. The Court considering its earlier judgments in
Mohinder Kumar v. State and Ali Mustafa Abdul
Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala held as under:
(Baldev Singh case, SCC p. 199, para 28)
“28…. It must be borne in mind that severer
the punishment, greater has to be the care
taken to see that all the safeguards provided
in a statute are scrupulously followed.”
29. The Constitution Bench of this Court in G.
Sadanandan v. State of Kerala held that if all the
safeguards provided under the statute are not
observed, an order having serious consequences is
passed without proper application of mind, having a
casual approach to the matter, the same can be
characterised as having been passed mala fide, and
thus, is liable to be quashed.
31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-
government has to be put on a higher pedestal as
against a government servant. If a temporary
government employee cannot be removed on the
ground of misconduct without holding a full-fledged
inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office-
bearer can be removed without holding a full-fledged
inquiry.
32. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is
permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as
per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal,
termination or reduction in rank, a full-fledged inquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
16/23
is required otherwise it will be violative of the
provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
The case is to be understood in an entirely different
context as compared to the government employees, for
the reason, that for the removal of the elected officials,
a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is
required.
33. This Court examined the provisions of the Punjab
Municipal Act, 1911, providing for the procedure of
removal of the President of Municipal Council on
similar grounds in Turlochan Dev Sharma v. State of
Punjab and observed that removal of an elected office-
bearer is a serious matter. The elected office-bearer
must not be removed unless a clear-cut case is made
out, for the reason that holding and enjoying an office,
discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right
of not only the elected member but also of his
constituency or electoral college. His removal may
curtail the term of the office-bearer and also cast
stigma upon him. Therefore, the procedure prescribed
under a statute for removal must be strictly adhered to
and unless a clear case is made out, there can be no
justification for his removal. While taking the decision,
the authority should not be guided by any other
extraneous consideration or should not come under
any political pressure.
34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the
incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for
which he has been elected unless his election is set
aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
17/23
removed by the procedure established under law. The
proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement
of natural justice and the decision must show that the
authority has applied its mind to the allegations made
and the explanation furnished by the elected office-
bearer sought to be removed.
35. The elected official is accountable to its electorate
because he is being elected by a large number of
voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is
removed from the post and declared disqualified to
contest the elections for a further stipulated period, but
it also takes away the right of the people of his
constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly,
the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person
can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but
he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the
provisions provided by the legislature for his removal
(vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosa, Mohan Lal Tripathi v.
District Magistrate, Rae Bareily and Ram Beti v.
District Panchayat Raj Adhikari).
36. In view of the above, the law on the issue stands
crystallised to the effect that an elected member can be
removed in exceptional circumstances giving strict
adherence to the statutory provisions and holding the
enquiry, meeting the requirement of principles of
natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity
to defend himself, for the reason that removal of an
elected person casts stigma upon him and takes away
his valuable statutory right. Not only the elected office-
bearer but his constituency/electoral college is also
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
18/23
deprived of representation by the person of their
choice.
37. A duly elected person is entitled to hold office for
the term for which he has been elected and he can be
removed only on a proved misconduct or any other
procedure established under law like “no confidence
motion”, etc. The elected official is accountable to its
electorate as he has been elected by a large number of
voters and it would have serious repercussions when
he is removed from the office and further declared
disqualified to contest the election for a further
stipulated period.”
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that an
elected representative cannot be disqualified on vague, indefinite,
frivolous or fanciful allegations or on evidence which is of a shaky
or prevaricating character.
12. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 has filed
a detailed counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has
been disqualified to hold post of Chief Councillor, Khizersarai
Nagar Panchayat, Gaya as the petitioner suppressed the fact that
more than two children born after 04.04.2008 in terms of Section
18(1)(m) of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 read with Section 18(1) of
the provision has been upheld in the case of Jawed Vs. The State
of Haryana, reported in AIR 2003 SCC 3057 and in the case of
Arun Ravidas Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2011 (2) PLJR
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
19/23
795. The Respondent No. 6 has obtained an information under
Right to Information Act vide letter no. 53 and 54 dated
12.01.2023 which suggests that two male child were born after the
cut off date. Petitioner’s second child was born on 15.04.2008 and
petitioner’s third child was born in the year 2011 and apart from
that the State Election Commission vide letter no. 886 dated
17.03.2023 directed to hold an inquiry, the enquiry was conducted
by Additional Collector, Gaya after serving notice to the petitioner.
The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and found that
petitioner has submitted false document fabricating the same in
support of date of birth of her children which comes under the
ambit of criminal act and found that petitioner was elected on the
basis of forged and fabricated document. The State Election
Commission against issued a direction vide letter no. 1940 dated
09.08.2023 for fresh and proper enquiry of birth certificate of the
children of the petitioner to the Deputy Collector, Gaya. The
Deputy Collector, Gaya submitted his report dated 20.10.2023
before the State Election Commission to the effect that birth
certificate of living children and death certificate is forged and
fabricated document.
13. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission
submits that the Commission after full fledged enquiry has come
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
20/23
to the conclusion that the petitioner has disqualified from the post
in question under Section 18(1)(m) of the Bihar Municipal Act,
2007 which stipulates that if any person is having more than two
children after the cut off date 04.04.2008, then she/he is
disqualified under the Scheme of the Act and apart from that the
petitioner has given false information about the birth of her child
at para 9 of “Prapatra” (GA) which is the candidates bio-data form.
The State Election Commission only endeavours to check that
whether or not a person has more than two living children after the
said cut off date and if doing so it only examines and verifies the
document placed on record or the statement by the parties and
since in most cases the parties relies upon documents issued at the
level of Block or District authorities hence the documents inform
of certificates or any other document out of verified at the level of
district authority itself which is the best competent authority to do
so. In the present case, the issue of maintainability was raised by
the petitioner after lapse of about nine months but the Commission
has dealt and decided and it came to finding that since the
information provided under Right to Information Act regarding
family welfare payment register which contains entry for the year
2012 which shows that the writ petitioner had two sons and one
daughter and as per same last delivery was done one year earlier
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
21/23
i.e. in the year 2011 and the date of delivery was shown to be
15.04.2008. Based upon these documents, the State Election
Commission came to a finding that these are unimpeachable
documents and thus issue of maintainability came to be rejected.
14. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4
submits that on the basis of material available on record, the
petitioner has been found guilty of furnishing incorrect facts with
respect to the date of birth of her children inasmuch as after being
afforded sufficient opportunities, the petitioner was unable to
controvert the said charges and accordingly, she has declared
disqualified from holding the post of Chief Councillor, Nagar
Panchayat, Khizarsarai, Gaya by the State Election Commission.
The direction of the State Election Commission/Tribunal, the then
ADM, Gaya made a detailed enquiry and submits a report wherein
he came to the conclusion that the said Dinku Kumari (petitioner)
had contested the election after making false statement and
accordingly, the said report was sent to the State Election
Commission vide letter no. 847 dated 02.05.2023 by the
Respondent No. 3. During course of hearing of Case No. 12 of
2023, the State Election Commission/Tribunal directed the
Respondent No. 3 to make specific enquiry with respect to the date
of birth certificate of Abhishek Kumar, Abhimanyu Kumar and
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
22/23
Sweety Kumari and accordingly, the then ADM, Gaya made
enquiry in the light of the queries raiased by the State Election
Commission/Tribunal and submitted his report dated 20.10.2023
and the Commission/Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
petitioner had contested the election in question after disclosing
wrong facts and the Commission has rightly declared the petitioner
disqualified to hold the post of Chief Councillor, Nagar Panchayat,
Khizersarai.
15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it
transpired that the impugned order was passed by the State
Election Commission/Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by
a Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Rajani Kumari
(supra) as well as in the case of Saryug Mochi Vs. The State of
Bihar & Others, by a Division Bench of this Court has laid down
that “Whenever a disputed question of facts and contentious issue
is brought before the Commission as a ground and basis to render
a candidate disqualified, the Commission would be required to
relegate the parties to a competent court/tribunal or a fact finding
body competent to decide such contentious issued after taking
evidences and till such time the Commission shall not take a
decision on such complaint either suo motu or otherwise” but in
the present case, the Commission has taken a decision which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.12857 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
23/23
contrary to the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court as well
as a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
16. Therefore, this Court holds that the order dated
28.06.2024 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar in
Case No. 12 of 2023 (Annexure-9) is not in accordance with law
and the same is set aside.
17. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed.
However, there will be no order as to cost.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 17.03.2025 Uploading Date 26.06.2025 Transmission Date N.A.