Patna High Court - Orders
Shiv Ballam Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 February, 2016
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2394 of 2016
======================================================
Shiv Ballam Yadav
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
3 16-02-2016Heard the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2015/15.12.2015 bearing Memo No. 1083 dated 15.12.2015 passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Magadh division, Gaya in Election Dispute No. 02 of 2015-16 whereby the election case has been dismissed. Whereas the petitioner, the respondent no. 8 and some others contested for the post of Chairman, Jagpura Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society in the district of Jahanabad in which the respondent no.8 was returned but his election was questioned by the petitioner by filing an election dispute in question inter alia on grounds of suppression of fact by the respondent no.8 while declaring his criminal involvement in any case.
Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the nomination paper as well as the annexure which forms a part Annexure-3 submits that the Patna High Court CWJC No.2394 of 2016 (3) dt.16-02-2016 2 respondent no.8 has struck off the information regarding his criminal involvement in any case which is a blatant lie. Learned counsel with reference to F.I.R. in Bela P.S. Case No. 127 of 2001 present at Annexure-1 submits that the respondent no.8 was chargesheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 325, 379, 353, 332, 333 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substance Act, Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel again with reference to Annexure 2 submits that the cognizance was taken by the Court below on 28.9.2002. He submits that all these relevant information has been suppressed by the respondent no. 8 while filing his affidavit in response to the query so made and which amounts to corrupt practice thus rendering his nomination fit to be rejected. Learned counsel with reference to the impugned order of the Joint Registrar submits that although an issue of ineligibility of the respondent no.8 to contest the election was raised on grounds of his non-disclosure in the nomination form rendering it nullity on the grounds of corrupt practice as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467:AIR 2015 SC 1926 (Krishnamoorthy vs. Shivakumar and others) but the Joint Registrar has mis-directed itself and has rejected the election case on completely different ground and even when the Patna High Court CWJC No.2394 of 2016 (3) dt.16-02-2016 3 petitioner never questioned the election of the respondent no.8 on voter list rather the challenge was specifically on account of suppression in the nomination but the Joint Registrar has perversely dismissed the case.
Let a counter affidavit be filed by the Joint Registrar, Magadh division himself, to justify his opinion in the backdrop of the facts noted above and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Krishnamoorthy vs. Shivakumar & others (Supra).
Issue notice to the respondent no. 8 for which requisites etc. both under ordinary process as well as under registered cover with A/D be filed within one week failing which this writ petition as against the concerned respondent shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.
Put up this matter after service of notice/appearance of the respondents whichever is earlier under the heading 'For Orders' for fixing a date of hearing in admission matter.
(Jyoti Saran, J) deepika/-
U