Patna High Court
Pushpa Devi vs Samri Devi 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.17488 of 2024
======================================================
Pushpa Devi wife of Divakar Kumar Das, Resident of village- Dumariya
Tand, P.O. - Khadaich, P.S. Khaira, District- Jamui (Bihar), PIN - 811317.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Samri Devi Wife of Ganesh Tati, Resident of Village- Lalpur, P.S. - Khaira,
District - Jamui.
2. Smt. Komal, Wife of Vinod Kumar, aged about not known, Resident of
village - Sakhipura, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui.
3. Pramila Devi, Wife of Basuki Tati, aged not known, Resident of village-
Lalpur, P.S. Khaira, District - Jamui.
4. Pramita Devi, Wife of Sitaram Tati, aged not known, Resident of Village-
Kairakado , P.S. - Khaira, District- Jamui.
5. Runi Kumar, Wife of Chandan Kumar, aged - not known, Resident of village
- Khadaianch, P.S. Khaira, District- Jamui.
6. Rekha Devi, Wife of Shyamsundar Manjhi, aged - not known, Resident of
village - Dumri Chatod, P.S. - Khaira, District- Jamui.
7. Supriya Suman, Wife of Sanjay Kumar Suman, age- not known, Resident of
village- Khadainch, P.S. - Khaira, District- Jamui.
8. Soni Kumari, Wife of Jitendra Kumar, aged-not known, Resident of village-
Khadainch, P.S. - Khaira, District- Jamui.
9. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna.
10. The District Magistrate-cum-Election Officer, Jamui.
11. The Block Development Officer, Block - Khaira, District - Jamui, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (13)
For the Pvt. Resp. : Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For the Election Commission: Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2025
Heard Mr. P. K. Verma, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. D. K. Sinha, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
2/21
Mr. Ravi Rajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
Election Commission and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
setting aside the judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by the
Munsif cum Election Tribunal, Civil Court, Jamui in Election
Case No. 07 of 2021 whereby the election of the petitioner as
Mukhiya from Gram Panchayat Raj, Khadaich in Khaira, Jamui
has been set aside and further respondent no. 1 has been
declared elected as Mukhiya for the said gram panchayat, by
completely ignorning the mandatory provisions contained under
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the rules framed thereunder, and
also against the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
High Court. The gram panchayat raj Khadich was reserved
constituency for Scheduled Caste (Female) by a general
notification of the State Government dated 24.08.2021. The
Panchayat Election for Jamui district was held in 8 phase and
polling date was 24.11.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submtis that
several candidates submitted their nomination paper for
contesting the said election for the post of Mukhiya including
the petitioner out of which nomination papers of 9 candidates
were accepted and they were notified as contesting candidates.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
3/21
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 apart from the petitioner have
contested the elelction and the petitioner received the highest
numbers of votes in the polling held on 24.11.2021 and after the
counting held on 26.11.2021, she was declared elected as
Mukhiya of the said panchayat. He further submits that after
submission of the nomination papers by all the candidates,
scrutiny was held by the Returning Officer in his office and all
the candidates and their representatives were asked to remained
present and after inviting objections on each nomination papers
from all the candidates, the same was scrutinised and the
decision to accept or reject the same was taken by the Returning
Officer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
during the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the petitioner,
none of the candidates or their representatives have raised any
objection nor any objection was raised by the officer
scrutinising the nomination and affidavit of the petitioner. He
further submits that after being defeated in the election, the
Respondent No. 1 has chosen to raise dispute by filing Election
Petition under Sections 137 and 139 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 before the learned Munsif cum Election Tribunal,
Jamui Civil Court on 24.12.2021 and the same was registered as
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
4/21
Election Case No. 07 of 2021. He further submits that the
ground taken in the election petition was non disclosure of
Complaint Case No. 56 (C) of 2018 which was pending before
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamui in which cognizance had
been taken under Sections 448, 427, 379 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and apart from that also obtained 10 decimal of
agricultural land and showing of two rooms instead of 5 rooms
in her house and not given the details of two wheelers in the
affidavit submitted by the petitioner along with the nomination
paper as required under Section 125 (a) (i) of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the pleading cannot be amended in the plaint (Election Petition)
brining new facts and allegations nor new prayer can be added
nor necessary parties can be added in an election petition after
the expiry of period of limitation prescribed in the Panchayat
Raj Act and rules. Section 137 of the Act clearly mandates and
sub Section 2(a) that where the claim is made for further
declaration that he/she, himself/herself or any other candidate be
declared elected, then all the contesting candidates shall be
joined as respondents to the election petition. Rule 106(2)(a) of
the Election Rules 2006 prescribes similar provisions. Further
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
5/21
Rule 106(1) read with Section 137(1) of Panchayat Raj Act
prescribes the limitation of 30 days from the date of declaration
of the result for filing the election petition. In the present case,
admittedly the result of the election was declared on 26.11.2021
and 30 days limitation expired on 26.12.2021 and the election
petition was filed on 24.12.2021 but in the election petition
neither all the contesting candidates who were the necessary
parties as per the requirements of the Act were added nor there
was any prayer for declaring the plaintiff elected. After expiry of
period of limitation, an amendment was sought for on
07.01.2022
by the plaintiff for not only adding the said prayer
but also for adding 7 contesting candidates who were the
necessary parties and for adding new facts and allegation in
paragraph no. 11 of the plaint. The same was wrongly allowed
by the learned Munsif even after the expiry of the limitation
period and the judgment was delivered thereon and the
Respondent No. 1 plaintiff was declared elected without framing
of issue on the point.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the paragraph nos. 9, 10, 25 & 27 of the judgment in the case of
Neelam Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2008
(3) PLJR 187 which are quoted hereinbelow:-
“9. The statute provides that
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
6/21where a person claims a declaration that
the election of all the returned candidates or
any of the returned candidate is void along
with a further declaration that he himself or
any other candidate has been duly elected,
then in the event that he wants declaration
of his own success to the prejudice of
another, all the contesting candidates in the
election fray have to be made parties to the
petition; but where he only seeks a
declaration of invalidity of a returned
candidate without consequent declaration
for himself, then he is required to implead
only the returned candidates.
10. In the present case, the relief
sought in the plaint is for a declaration of
invalidity of the election of the present
petitioner along with consequent
declaration of winning in favour of
Respondent No. 6/plaintiff. On a bare
reading of the statutory provisions, the
plaintiff-Respondent No. 6 was, therefore,
required to implead all the contesting
candidates in the election fray as parties in
the election petition. That has not been
done. If the statute provided the plaint to be
instituted in a particular manner, without
further more or any intervening
circumstances, the very presentation of the
plaint had to be done in that manner. The
language used in Section 137(2) is ‘shall’,
and does not give an option. In the case
reported in AIR 1976 SC 263 (Govind Lal
Chaggan Lal Patel v. The Agriculture
Produce Market Committee) with regard to
the term ‘shall’ the Apex Court quoted the
following passage from page 1077 of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported
in AIR 1967 SC 1074:
“The term ‘shall’ in its ordinary
significance is mandatory and the Court
shall ordinarily give that interpretation to
that term unless such an interpretation
leads to some absurd or inconvenient
consequence or be at variance with the
intent of the legislature, to be collected from
other parts of the Act. The construction of
the said expression depends on the
provisions of a particular Act, the setting in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
7/21which the expression appears, the object for
which the direction is given the
consequences that would flow from the
infringement of the direction and such other
considerations.”
25. The question of non-
impleadment of necessary parties when
specifically provided by the statute as
distinct from necessary parties based on the
relief sought in pleadings becomes a
question of jurisdiction. If it becomes a
question of jurisdiction, non-compliance
renders the suit without jurisdiction. The
analogy may be drawn from the provisions
of the Limitation Act. It is the solemn duty of
the Court to throw out the petition which is
barred by limitation notwithstanding that
the objection could not have been raised as
a defence. This is based on the premise that
the law bars the suit. Similar would be
position here. The suit ought to have been
thrown out at the very inception not being in
consonance with and fulfilment of statutory
requirements.
27. This Court, therefore, holds
that the very institution of the Election
Petition No. 2 of 2006 before the Court of
Sub-Judge IV, Supaul was not in
consonance with the statutory requirements
of Section 137(2) of the Bihar Panchayat
Raj Act and Rule 106(2) of the Bihar
Panchayat Election Rules framed
thereunder and should have been thrown
out at the inception itself. The judgment
dated 22-8-2007 in Election Petition No. 2
of 2006 rendered by Sub-Judge IV, Supaul
at Annexure-9 to the writ application is,
accordingly, set aside. The petitioner stands
restored to her position as the winning
candidate in whose favour statutory
winning declaration was issued. Let the
original records called for be returned to
the learned counsel for the State Election
Commission.”
7. The aforesaid paragraphs suggests that no
amendment in the election petition is permissible beyond the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
8/21
period of limitation and if done, then the same was hit by
jurisdiction error. It was also held that any petition filed against
mandate prescribed under Section 137 of the Act and Rule
106(2) of the Rules is fit to be thrown out at the inseption itself.
In view of the aforesaid judgment, any order passed by the
learned Court below in contravention of the same is also fit to
be set aside. The Court held that the petitioner thereby stand
restored to her position as the winning candidate in whose
favour the declaration was issued.
8. The aforesaid judgment was also reiterated in
the case of Kameshwar Singh Vs. Surya Narayan Rai and
Ors. reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 722 particularly in paragraph
nos. 10, 11, 12 & 14 and also in the case of Roji Kumari Vs.
Julekha Khatoon reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 614 particularly
paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7 & 9.
9. The impugned order/judgment passed by the
learned Munsif, Jamui in the present case setting aside the
election of the petitioner (returned candidate) and thereafter,
declaring the Respondent No. 1 (defeated candidate) as elected
is bad on the face of it and therefore, is fit to be set aside. The
election of the returned candidate cannot be set aside on the
ground of commission of corrupt practices under Section 139
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
9/21
(1)(b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 in absence of any
pleading of corrupt practices in the entire election petition as has
been done in the concluding paragraphs of the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Munsif. It is settled law that no
petition can be allowed on an allegation of commission of
corrupt practices by the learned Court in absence of any such
pleading made in the entire election petition.
10. The corrupt practices have been enumerated
under Section 141 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 which
includes (i) bribery (ii) undue influence (iii) religious or caste
appeal or appeal through national symbol and emblem
previously affeced the election (iv) attempt to promote enmity
and differences, classes and section on the ground of religious
and race (v) publication of any false statement (vi) hiring
vehicle for convenience of any voter (vii) holding meeting in
which intoxicating liquor has been served (viii) issuance of the
cricular / playcard, public poster about election without name
and address of the printer and publisher (ix) any other practices
which the government may be rule specified as corrupt
practices.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that from perusal of the entire election petition which reveals
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
10/21
that there was no pleading whatsoever on a reference to any
allegation of corrupt practices as mentioned of aforesaid
provision under Section 141. The only allegation is of non-
compliance and non-disclosure of the certain information as it
required in an affidavit filed along with the nomination paper
under Section 125 (a) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Apparently any
defect in an affidavit as referred to under Section 125 (a) is not
enumerated as a corrupt practice under Section 141 of the Act.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the paragraph nos. 19, 20 & 21 of the judgment in the case of
Karim Uddin Bharbuiya Vs. Animul Haque Laskar reported
in AIR 2024 SC 2194 and held that any supression and
misrepresentation of fact in an affidavit filed along with the
nomination paper would not fall within the definition of corrupt
practices and the election petitioner is required to make a
consize material facts as to how the appellant has indulged into
corrupt practices or undue influence by directly or indirectly
interferring or attempt to interfere the free exercise of electoral
rights. Mere bold and vague allegation without any basis would
not be sufficient compliance of requirement of making a consize
pleadings. It is essential that specific pleadings are made to
support the allegation but in the present case admittedly there is
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
11/21
no pleading at all indicating commission of corrupt practices.
Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Munsif
setting aside the election of the petitioner under Section 139(1)
(b) of the Act on the ground of commission of corrupt practices
is bad in law.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in absence of pleading to the effect that the result of the
election of the returned candidate has been materially affected
due to any defeat or any non-disclosure of any affidavit filed
along with the nomination paper as required under Section
125(a) of the Act, 2006 no interference in the election result of
the returned candidate would be even otherwise made. He
further submits that from perusal of the Section 139(a)(d) of the
Act would show that the mandate to plead and to prove as to
how the result of the election insofar as it concerned a returned
candidate had been materially affected because of any improper
acceptance of nomination of the petitioner or on account of a
defeat in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper
merely stating certain facts are not disclosed as required under
Section 125 of the Act and is not sufficient until and unless a
mandate as given in Clause D of the pleading are provided
whether the same materially affected the result of the candidate
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
12/21
is not done.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that it transpire from the election petition which reveals that
there was no pleading whatsoever was with respect to the said
requirement of law as to how the result of the election of the
returned candidate was materially affected. The aforesaid issue
has been addressed by the Apex Court in the case of Mangni
Lal Mandal Vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari reported in AIR 2012
SC 1094 particularly paragraph nos. 9, 10 & 11 where the Court
has categorically stated that the absence of pleading as to how
the result is materially affected as required under Section 100(1)
(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, the election of the
returned candidate cannot be interfered. A similar allegation of
non-disclosure of any information in the affidavit filed along
with the nomination paper would not disclose a cause of action
until specific pleading as to how it affected the election is made.
The Munsif Court held that any such election petition deserves
to be dismissed at the very threshhold without consuming the
Court’s time and putting the returned candidate to unnecessary
trouble and inconvience. The same ratio has been reiterated and
affirmed by the Apex Court in the recent case of Karikho Kri
Vs. Nuney Tayang reported in AIR 2014 SC 2121 particularly
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
13/21
in paragraph nos. 46, 47 & 50.
15. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the private respondent submits that the
order impugned passed by the learned Munsiff cum Election
Tribunal, Civil Court, Jamui in election case no. 7 of 2021 is
proper and according with the mandate of the Bihar Panchayat
Raj Act, 2006. Apart from that as per Section 125 A (1)
furnishing of certain information is essential for candidate and
as per rule 39 (F) no nomination paper shall be received by a
returning officer unless its accompanied by the certain
documents. And as per affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner
dated 20.12.2021 along with nomination paper in which it is
shown that business of Pashupalan an annual income shows Rs.
1,20,000/- per year and not shown the income of agriculture
concealing the true fact and did not mentioned anywhere
regarding the criminal case under Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code. Apart from that the private respondent had filed
objection before the returning officer on 30.10.2021 but the
same was not taking into consideration by the returning officer.
So far as limitation in filing the election petition is concerned, it
is not correct and issue no. 3 is with respect to limitation which
is clear that there is no limitation as election was held on
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
14/21
24.11.2021, counting of votes was completed on 26.11.2021-
27.11.2021 and election petition was filed on 24.12.2021. As per
provision under Sections 137, 139 and 140 of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and rule 106 which provides 30 days
time to file election petition. Hence, the present election petition
is filed within the time. The issue with respect to inclusion of
candidates as party as required under Section 139 of the Act,
repetition of inclusion of parties by way of amendment was filed
under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which was placed on 07.01.2022
and the same was accepted by the learned Court below likewise
amendment to declare the respondent as elected as per election
order dated 07.01.2022.
16. Learned counsel for the private respondent
has relied upon the judgment in the case of Reham Sah Vs.
Govind Singh passed in Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2023 arising
out of SLP (C ) No. 27901 of 2015 which was decided by an
order dated 24.09.2024. As per the aforesaid judgment, period
from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been excluded for the
purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general
and special law vide judgment dated 10.01.2022 passed in Misc.
Appeal No. 21 of 2022 and other analogous cases by the
Hon’ble Apex Court. In fact, in March, 2020 the Hon’ble Apex
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
15/21
Court took sou moto cognizance of the difficulties that might be
faced by the litigants in filing petition. In particular, other quasi
proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the
general law or limitation under any special law due to the out
break of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is pertient to mention here
that despite valid service of notice, the petitioner did not appear
in the election petition and after appearance a cost of Rs. 4,000/-
was imposed upon the petitioner on 26.04.2022 and she has
filed her written statement on 13.05.2022. From perusal of the
written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, no averment
has been made regarding joining of necessary party. The writ
petitioner in course of hearing before the learned Court below
submitted a list of 125 witnesses but examine only 2 witnesses
and surprisingly she herself was not examined nor her proposal
of nomination was examined and hence, the written statement
was not supported nor stated anything contrary to the plaint and
for the first time in writ jurisdiction, the writ petitioner has
raised the aforesaid objections which she has not placed before
the competent Civil Court. That in view of the aforesaid, no case
is made for interference of this Court because the writ petitioner
for the first time in writ petition has raised all the objections
which she may raised before the election in the election petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
16/21
and in view of the aforesaid, the writ petition may be dismissed.
17. Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the
Election Commission submits that the private respondent has
filed the Election case no. 07 of 2021 challenging the election of
the petitioner. Later on, vide amendment in the said election
petition not only other contraty sitting candidates were added as
respondent but also amendment in the prayer was made
inasmuch as the election petition sought declaration in her
favour for declareing as returning candidate on the post of
Mukhiya. As far as stand of the answering commission is
concerned, it is stated that the State Election Commission is
vested with duty to conduct election for all seats of Panchayat
under which direct supervision, control and direction and sooner
the result of the election is announced the certificate is handed
over to returning candidate. The process of election gets over
and so does not prolong the commission as far as the said
election is concerned. He further submits that Section 140 of the
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 lays down conditions under
which the candidate other than the returning candidate can be
declared elected. From perusal of the said section which clearly
manifest that there are only two contingencies wherein, an
another person can be declared as returned candidate, firstly,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
17/21
when it is established that such other candidate has actually
received the maximum number of valid votes and secondly,
when the returned candidate has got maximum votes by way of
corrup practices and it is in fact, other candidate who has
received maximum valid votes. Clearly in the present case, the
learned Election Tribunal has relied upon the second part of the
Section 140 wherein after giving a finding of commission of
corrupt practices, straight away in a very casual manner since
the election petitioner was runner up candidate and she has
been declared as returned candidate. It is required to be stated
that declaration of the candidate as returned candidate is based
upon the sole factor of that person receving maximum valid
votes and merely because a person’s election has been interfered
with on the ground of concealment of criminal cases whereby
making it the case of improper acceptance of nomination paper
will not make the valid votes received by such candidates
invalid or to say it otherwise. The valid votes received by a
candidate whose election has been set aside cannot be thrown
out on this ground. The case would be different if such person is
held to be not qualified or disqualified and on this ground alone
if election is set aside then the matter would have been different.
The declaration of the another candidate as returned candidate
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
18/21
cannot be done casually but it can only be done by the tribunal
below as per stipulation of Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat
Raj Act, 2006 wherein the Court has to give a special finding as
to how a person other than a returned candidate whose election
has been challenged has received maximum number of valid
votes and thus, he or she is required to be declared as returned
candidate. But in the present case the learned Election Tribunal
while setting aside the election of the returned candidate in a
very casual manner declared the runner up candidate as returned
candidate and the same was subject matter of the present writ
petition. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has stayed
the declaration in favour of the another candidate on
consideration of requirement of Section 140 of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 in LPA No. 966 of 2024 and the same
is still pending for adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. The
declaration in favour of another candidate required to be strictlyt
adjudicated as per the Section 140 of the Act and it cannot be
made in favour of a runner up candidate in routine manner
merely because of the election of returned candidate has been
set aside. In the present case, without there being an allegation
of corrupt practice or without there being any adjudication on
the aspect of corrupt practice a finding based on the same has
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
19/21
been given and relief based on the same has been extended to
the election petitioner which is illegal and unjust in the eyes of
the law. In the present case the finding on corrupt practice has
been given when clearly neither it was pleaded in the election
petition nor issue was framed on same and merely based upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court finding of corrupt
practice has been given against the writ petitioner. Apart from
that there is another aspect of the matter at hand which clearly
states that post of Mukhiya was reserved for Scheduled Caste
Female category but the election petitioner belongs to the tati
tatva caste which was the scheduled caste by virtue of
notification dated 01.07.2015 by the State Government as
already been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order
dated 15.07.2024 passed in SLP (C) No. 18802 of 2017 and in
also SLP (C) No. 18294 of 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court. Thus, the election petitioner who belong to the tati tatva
caste is no more a Scheduled Caste category person and thus,
she is not qualified to hold the post of the Mukhiya.
18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
the preprositions laid down by this Court in the case of Neelam
Kumari Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) which was also
reiterated in the case of Kameshwar Singh Vs. Surya Narayan
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
20/21
Rai & Ors. (supra) and other judgments as mentioned aforesaid
is fully applied to the present case.
19. Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,
2006 lays down conditions under which the candidate other than
the returning candidate can be declared elected. From perusal of
the Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 which
suggest that there are only two contingencies wherein, another
person can be declared as returned candidate, firstly when it is
established that such other candidate has actually received
maximum number of valid votes and secondly, when the
returned candidate has got maximum votes by way of corrupt
practices.
20. The Election Tribunal has come to the
conclusion on the basis of the second part of the Section 140 of
the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and interfere the election of
the returned candidate on the ground of concealment of criminal
cases. The valid votes received by the candidate whose election
has been set aside ignoring the mandate of the Section 141 of
the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and apart from the aforesaid,
the Election Tribunal without being any adjudication on the
aspect of corrupt practice, a finding based on the same and relief
based on the same has been given to the election petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.17488 of 2024 dt. 26-06-2025
21/21
which is illegal and unjust in the eye of the law.
21. This Court, therefore, holds that the Election
Case No. 7 of 2021 before the Court of learned Munsif, Jamui
was not in consonance with the statutory requirements of
Section 137 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The
judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in Election Case No. 7 of
2021 rendered by the learned Munsif, Jamui (Annexure -P/1) is
accordingly set aside and the present writ application stands
allowed.
22. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 03.03.2025 Uploading Date 26.06.2025 Transmission Date NA