Grijesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 4 July, 2025

0
3


Patna High Court

Grijesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 4 July, 2025

Author: Alok Kumar Sinha

Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18437 of 2024
     ======================================================
     Grijesh Kumar Sharma Son of Dhanai Sharma, Resident of village and P.O.
     Bagahi, P.S. Kateyan District- Gopalganj.

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
     Bihar, Patna.
3.   The District Magistrate -cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat),
     Gopalganj, District - Gopalganj.
4.   The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.
5.   The Block Development Officer, Kateya, District- Gopalganj.
6.   Punam Sharma wife of Sanjay Sharma Resident of village and P.O. Bagahi,
     P.S. Kateyan, District - Gopalganj.
7.   The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel
     Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner.
8.   The State Election Commissioner, The State Election Commission
     (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
9.   The Officer on Special Duty, The State Election Commission (Panchayat),
     Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :     Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate
                                   Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
                                   Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
                                   Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Advocate

     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Ajay Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-4
     For Election Commission :     Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
     For respondent No.6      :    Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd. Gupta, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
     CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 04-07-2025
              1)   Heard the parties.

                  2) The petitioner in the present writ application has

     prayed for grant of following reliefs :-

          "(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
          CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by
          the Respondent no.8 and contained in his memo no.3817dated
 Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
                                     2/16




            14.10.2024

whereby and where under, exercising his
power under Section 136 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayat
Act
), the Respondent no.8 has beeri pleased to declare the
petitioner disqualified to hold the post of municipality of
Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi under Kateya
Block of Gopalganj District on the ground that according
to petitioner’s date of birth mentioned in his matriculation
certificate and the marks-sheet produced by the petitioner,
his date of birth is 01.06.2001 and therefore, on the date
of scrutiny of nomination paper on 03.10.2021, the
petitioner was aged about 20 years 4 months and 02 days
notwithstanding that for the purposes of ascertainment of
petitioner’s age, the petitioner was referred to a Medical
Board and the Medical Board has assessed his age to be
more than 25 years.

(II) For a declaration that if there are other various
documents in connection with the age of the petitioner
like Adhar Card, PAN card, Passport etc., according to
which, the petitioner was born in 1981 i.e. 01.06.1981
and to resolve the controversy, he was referred to Medical
Board and Medical Board has assessed the petitioner’s
age to be more than 25 years on the date when he was
examined by the Medical Board, the Respondent no.8 was
not justified to declare the petitioner disqualified to hold
the post of Mukhiya even if according to the entry made
in the matriculation certificate he was under age on the
date of scrutiny of nomination paper i.e. 03.10.2021.
(III) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
MANDAMUS ,commanding and directing the Respondent
Authorities for reinstatement of the petitioner to the post
which he was holding on or before the passing of
impugned order by the Respondent no.8 and
communicated by the Respondent no.9 on 14.10.2024.
(IV) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs,
order/ orders, direction/directions for which the writ
petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the State Election Commission had notified

Panchayat Election, 2021 in Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas

Bagahi in which the petitioner, respondent No.6 and many

other candidates had filed their nomination to contest for

the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
3/16

petitioner and the respondent No.6 Smt. Punam Sharma

are co-villagers and known to each other but on the date of

scrutiny of nomination paper, i.e., 03.10.2021, no

objection was raised by the respondent No.6 against the

validity of petitioner’s nomination on any ground

whatsoever including his age to contest the election. It is

further stated that the petitioner, the respondent No.6, Smt.

Punam Sharma and many other candidates contested the

election and ultimately after counting of votes, the

petitioner was declared elected for the pose of Mukhiya of

Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi.

4) It is further submitted by learned counsel for

the petitioner that after the declaration of result in favour

of the petitioner by the Returning Officer, a complaint

under Section 136(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 was

filed by the respondent No.6, Smt. Poonam Sharma before

the respondent No.8, i.e., State Election Commissioner,

wherein a prayer was made to declare the petitioner

disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram

Panchayat on the ground that his date of birth as per

matriculation certificate was 01.06.2001, and therefore, on

the date of scrutiny of nomination paper, i.e, 03.10.2021,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
4/16

the petitioner was less than 21 years of age, which as per

respondent No.6, was a pre-condition to contest the

Panchayat election, in view of the provision contained

under Section 136 (1) (b) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

For ready reference Section 136(1)(b) of Bihar Panchcyat

Raj Act, 2006 is quoted hereinbelow for needful :-

“136. Disqualification for Membership.

(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or
after election for holding the post as Mukhiya,
member of the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch,
Panch of the Gram Katchahri, member of the
Panchayat Samiti and member of Zila Parishad,
if such person-

(b)is so disqualified by or under any law for the
time being in force for the purposes of elections
to the Legislature of the State. Provided that no
person shall be disqualified on the ground that he
is less than twenty five years of age, if he has
attained the age of twenty one years;

[Emphasis Supplied]

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after

service of notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.8,

i.e., the State Election Commission and filed his counter

affidavit/written statement. As per the petitioner, the petitioner himself

had brought on record the matriculation certificate according to which

the petitioner’s date of birth was 01.06.2001, however, along with his

counter affidavit, the petitioner had also placed on record many other
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
5/16

records, such as his passport, his driving license, his election photo

identity card, his affidavit sworn before Notary Public and his

application to the Principal, Higher Secondary School, Dimapur,

Gopalganj, requesting therein to correct his date of birth in his

matriculation certificate. All these additional documents were brought

before the respondent No.8 to prove that the petitioner’s date of birth is

actually 01.06.1981 and not 01.06.2001. The counsel for the petitioner

further submits that after filing of the counter affidavit before the

respondent-Commission, the petitioner had also produced his Aadhar

Card, Pan Card, Ration Card, Voter list etc to to establish that his date

of birth was 01.06.1981. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that on his request, the respondent-Commission had granted

liberty to the petitioner to get his age assessed by the Medical Board

and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner was requested before the

Medical Board of Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital,

Muzaffarpur. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on

30.09.2023 for assessment of his age and after analysis, the Medical

Board recorded its finding that the petitioner was more than 25 years of

age. The said report of the Medical Board has been annexed with the

writ application as Annexure P-4. Subsequently, by letter No. 1336

dated 07.10.2023, the Chairman and member of Medical Board are
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
6/16

also said to have informed Principal, S.K.M.C.H., that in their

opinion, the petitioner was more than 25 years of age.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

respondent-Commission was also pleased to call for a report from the

District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer vide its order dated

19.12.2023, 29.04.2024. In compliance thereof, the District Panchayat

Raj Officer, Gopalganj submitted his report and all relevant document

for consideration by the respondent-Commission vide his letter No.920

dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P/5). In this report, as per the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the District Panchayat Raj Officer had

mentioned about the birth certificates of three daughters namely, Lavli

Sharma, Ragini Sharma, and Rauli Sharma and one son, Aayush

Sharma, according to which first daughter, Lavli Sharma was born to

the petitioner on 24.4.2013 and, therefore, in no case it can be accepted

that the petitioner was born in 2001.

7) It is further submitted that in support of the case as alleged in the

complaint, respondent No.6, Smt. Poonam Sharma only relied upon the

matriculation certificate of Bihar School Examination Board in which

the date of birth was mentioned as 01.06.2001.

8) The learned counsel for the petitioner further states and submits

that despite there being overwhelming evidence, such as passport,

driving license, Election photo I.D. Card, his affidavit sworn before
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
7/16

Notary Public, Aadhar Card, Pan Card, ration card, voter list, etc.

which clearly established the fact that the petitioner was born on

01.06.1981, the respondent-Commission has illegally only relied upon

the matriculation certificate of the petitioner for determining his date of

birth to be 01.06.2001 and simply on that basis, the respondent-

Commission has held that on the date of scrutiny, i.e., 03.10.2021, the

petitioner was less than 21 years of age and hence stood disqualified

under Section 136(1)(b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. In this

regard, final order was passed by the respondent-Commission which is

contained in Memo No.3817 dated 14.10.2024 (AnnexureP/8) which

has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ application as

being incorrect and contrary to law.

9) During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the

petitioner emphatically submitted that the matriculation certificate of

the petitioner showing his date of birth to be 01.06.2001, could not

have been relied upon by the respondent-Commission as

unimpeachable material for disqualifying the petitioner from the post

of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Ramdas Bagahi in terms of Section

136(1)(b) of Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and, therefore, the

respondent-Commission by doing so has acted contrary to the law laid

down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajni Kumari Vs.

State Election Commission reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 673. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
8/16

petitioner particularly relied upon paragraph 184 of this Judgment

which is quoted hereinbelow for needful :- .

“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 a 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.

[Emphasis Supplied]

10) Per contra, the respondent-Commission has defended this order

dated 14.10.2024 contained in Memo No.3817 by submitting that by

now it is well settled that for determining correct date of birth, the

matriculation certificate is the most credible and unimpeachable
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
9/16

document and hence it has been rightly considered by the respondent-

Commission for holding that on the date of scrutiny, the petitioner was

below 21 years of age. The learned counsel appearing for respondent-

Commission has also submitted that all other documents submitted by

the petitioner before the respondent-Commission, such as passport,

driving license, Pan card, Aadhar card, voter I.D. card etc are not

credible piece of material / evidence for ascertaining the correct date of

birth of any person and hence the respondent-Commission has rightly

discarded these documents and only relied upon the matriculation

certificate of the petitioner, the veracity and genuineness of which was

never disputed by the petitioner and the said matriculation certification

shows the date of birth of the petitioner to be 01.06.2001. Learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-Commission has also defended

the reliance placed by the respondent-Commission on the judgment of

this Court delivered in the case of Mamta Kumari sV. State of Bihar

and others reported in 2022 (3) PLJR 814 wherein this Hon’ble Court

has been pleased to uphold the unimpeachable character of

matriculation certificate for the purpose of determining the correct date

of birth. This Judgment was also challenged before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court vide SLP No.17981 of 2022 but the same was

dismissed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court dated 05.08.2011 in Cr. Appeal No.1531 of 2024 in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
10/16

case of Shahnawaj Vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein while

laying down the guideline for determination of age of a child or

juvenile in conflict with law, it was held that only in absence of

matriculation or equivalent certificate, the other evidences would be

considered. As per the respondent-Commission, this shows that the

matriculation certificate is the most sacrosanct and unimpeachable

document for correct determination of age of any person. Therefore,

the respondent-Commission has rightly relied upon the matriculation

certificate of the petitioner which shows his date of birth to be

01.06.2001. It was reiterated that the genuineness or veracity or

authenticity of the said certificate was never questioned by the

petitioner.

11) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 has also

defended the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the respondent-

Commission and has adopted the argument advanced by learned

counsel appearing for respondent-Commission.

12) The issue whether matriculation certificate is the most credible

piece of document for determining the date of birth of any person in

contradistinction to other documents, such as voter I.D. Card, Aadhar

card, Pan card, driving license etc. is no longer res integra. In the case

of Mamta Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 2022 (3) PLJR

814 this is exactly the issue which was decided and after elaborate
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
11/16

discussion. Finally in paragraph 29 of this Judgment, it has been held

as follows :-

“29. The SEC has relied on Division Bench Decision
of this Court in case of Annu Kumari@ Annu
Sharma
(supra) while accepting entry of Date of Birth
in the matriculation certificate. The said view of SEC,
in our opinion cannot be said to be erroneous in the
facts and circumstances as discussed above. The
impugned order, in our opinion does not require
interference by this court.

13) In the following case, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has

also held the same view :-

Jagdish Prasad Vs. Arvind Kumar and others reported in 2024

SCC Online Raj 3368 at paragraph 21, 22 and 23 as follows :-

“21. In the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v.

State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750, it has been held by
the Apex Court that the matriculation certificate
issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education
(for short ‘CBSE’) would be given precedence over
any other evidence of the date of birth.

22. Similarly in the case of Parg Bhati v. State
of U.P.
(2016) 12 SCC 744, it has been held by the
Apex Court that if the matriculation certificate is
available and there is no other material to prove the
correctness of date of birth, the date of birth
mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be
treated as conclusive proof of date of birth. It has
been held in para 36 as under:-

“36. It is settled position of law that if the
matriculation or equivalent certificates are
available and there is no other material to
prove the correctness of date of birth, the date
of birth mentioned in the matriculation
certificate has to be treated as a conclusive
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
12/16

proof of the date of birth of the accused.

However, if there is any doubt or a
contradictory stand is being taken by the
accused which raises a doubt on the
correctness of the date of birth then as laid
down by
this Court in Abuzar Hossain, an
enquiry for determination of the age of the
accused is permissible which has been done in
the present case.”

23. The matriculation certificate is a public document
and the same is credible and authentic, as per the provisions
of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki v.
State of UP
, (2022) 8 SCC 602 in para 33.9 and 33.10, which
read as under:-

(33.9) That when the determination of age is on the
basis of evidence such as school records, it is
necessary that the same would have to be considered
as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act,
inasmuch as any public or official document
maintained in the discharge of official duty would
have greater credibility than private documents.
(33.10) Any document which is in consonance with
public documents, such as matriculation certificate,
could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board
provided such public document is credible and
authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act
viz.. section 35 and other provisions.

14) In Rajni Kumari‘s Case (Supra) also it has been held that the State

Election Commission shall entertain and consider the disqualification

issues on the basis of the unimpeachable materials placed before him.

In the present case, the respondent-Commission has rightly decided the

issue of disqualification on the basis of unimpeachable material, i.e.,

matriculation certification of the petitioner in which his date of birth
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
13/16

has been recorded as 01.06.2001. The veracity, genuineness and / or

the authenticity of the matriculation certificate was never questioned

by the petitioner. In fact, before the respondent-Commission, the

petitioner did not even question the unimpeachable character of the

matriculation certificate which showed his date of birth to be

01.06.2001. Without questioning its unimpeachable character, it is for

the first time in writ jurisdiction that the petitioner is trying to create

this issue which cannot be permitted.

15) The following finding given in the impugned order dated

14.10.2024 (Annexure P8) clearly outlines the basis for arriving at the

conclusion, which in my humble view is the right conclusion which

has been reached at by the respondent-Commission :-

mDr of.kZr fLFkfr esa fopkjk/khu okn esa vk;ksx ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fn;s
x;s fofHkUu U;k;&fu.kZ;ksa ds vk/kkj ij eSfVªd esa vafdr tUefrfFk dks
fujgZrk gsrq vk/kkj ekuus ds fy, ck/; gS] D;ksafd C.W.J.C. No.-
6191/2022, eerk dqekj cuke~ jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU; ekeys esa vk;ksx }
kjk izfroknh ds fofHkUu nLrkostksa@vfHkys[kksa ij eSfVªd ds izek.k i=ksa esa
vafdr tUefrfFk dks ojh;rk fn;s tkus dks pqukSrh nh x;h Fkh] ftlesa
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds f}lnL;h; ihB ds fu.kZ; dks ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh esa S.L.P. No.-17981/2022 }kjk pqukSrh nh
x;h Fkh] ijUrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk mDr pqukSrh dks [kkfjt dj fn;k
x;k FkkA
vk;q fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre~ U;k;ky; }kjk
fnukad &05-08-2011 dks “kkguokt cuke~ mÙkj izns”k ljdkj ,oa vU; esa
Criminal Appeal No. 1531/2011 esa tks U;k;kns”k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS]
ftlesa fdlh O;fDr ds vk;q fu/kkZj.k gsrq fofgr izfdz;k@ekxZn “kZu vafdr
gS] tks fuEuor gS%&

(3) In Every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law,
the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
14/16

Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by
obtaining-

(a) (i) The matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in
the absence whereof,

(ii) The date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play
school) first attended, and in the absence whereof;

(iii) The birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal
authority or a panchayat,

(b) And only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above,
the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical
Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child in case
exact assessment or the age cannot be done, the court or the
Board or, as the case my be, the Committee, for the reasons to be
recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the
child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the
margin of one year. And, while passing orders in such case shall,
after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or
the medical opinion, as the case may be record a finding in respect
or his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses

(a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the
conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile and
conflict with law.

mDRk U;k;&fu.kZ; ;|fi Juvenile Justice Act ds rgr vkus
okys oknksa ij ykxw gksrk gS rFkkfi True Sprit esa tgk¡ vk;q ds
fHkUu&fHkUu izek.k miyC/k gks] ogk¡ vU; ekeyksa esa Hkh ;g U;k;&fu.kZ;
lk{;ksa ds ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k esa ekxZn”kZu miyC/k djkrk gSA ;g Li’V djuk
gS fd vk;ksx dk fu.kZ; ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds bl U;k;&fu.kZ; ij
vk/kkfjr ugha gS] cfYd vk;ksx ds fu.kZ; dk vk/kkj S.L.P. No.-
17981/2022 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fn;k x;k
U;k;&fu.kZ; gS] D;ksafd vk;ksx ds le{k izfroknh dk Matriculation dk
izek.k&i= Unimpeachable lk{; ds :i esa miyC/k gSA
Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
15/16

mDr foospuk ds mijkar vk;ksx dk er gS fd eSfVªd ds
vad&[email protected]&i= ij vafdr tUefrfFk fufoZokn lk{;
(Unimpeachable Evidence) gS] ftldh lEiqf’V C.W.J.C. No.-
6191/2022, eerk dqekj cuke~ jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU; ekeys esa ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds Division Bench }kjk fnukad&10-08-2022 dks
ikfjr U;k; fu.kZ; ls Hkh gksrh gSA
¼d½ bl izdkj mi;qDr lHkh fLFkfr ls Li’V gS fd Jh fxzts “k
dqekj “kekZ mQZ fxzts”k “kekZ ds }kjk fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e&2006
¼;Fkk la”kkaf/kr½ dh /kkjk&136 ¼1½¼[k½ ds rgr v;ksX;rk vftZr dj yh xbZ
gS] D;ksafd os laoh{kk dh frfFk ¼fnukad&03-10-2021½ dks U;wure fu/kkZfjr
vk;q 21 o’kZ iwjk fd, fcuk gh eqf[k;k ds in ij fuokZfpr gq, gSaA Qyr%
fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e&2006 ¼;Fkk la”kkaf/kr½ dh /kkjk& 136 ¼2½ ls
iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, Jh fxzts”k dqekj “kekZ mQZ fxzts “k
“kekZ dks rRdky izHkko ls iapk;r jkenkl cxgh] iz[k.M&dVs;k]
ftyk&xksikyxat ds eqf[k;k ds in ls ineqDr fd;k tkrk gSA blds lkFk
gh mDr xzke iapk;r jkenkl cxgh] iz[k.M&dVs;k] ftyk&xksikyxat dk
in fjDr le>k tk;sxkA
¼[k½ ftyk inkf/kdkjh] xksikyxat dks] Jh fxzts “k dqekj “kekZ
mQZ fxzts”k “kekZ ds fo:) xyr gyQukek ,oa rF; Nqikus gsrq fcgkj
iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&125 ¼d½ ¼3½ ,oa vU; lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds
rgr fu;ekuqlkj fof/kd dkjZokbZ gsrq ftyk fuokZpu inkf/kdkjh
¼iapk;r½ ,oa ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh ds :i esa izkIr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj
d`r dkjZokbZ ls] vk;ksx dks voxr djkuk vfuok;Z gSA

16) Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the

reasons given above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order dated

14.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent-Commission and,

therefore, the said order is upheld. Consequently, the present writ

application filed by the petitioner is rejected/ dismissed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2024 dt.04-07-2025
16/16

17) All pending I.A., if any, shall be deemed to have been disposed

of.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
sanjeev/-

AFR/NAFR                 AFR
CAV DATE                 01.07.2025
Uploading Date           04.07.2025
Transmission Date
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here