Mamta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 10 August, 2022
Relying on the same decision
in case of Annu Kumari @ Annu Sharma (supra), he has
Patna High Court CWJC No.6191 of 2022 dt. 10-08-2022
8/26
submitted that the SEC cannot be said to have acted beyond its
jurisdiction while passing the impugned order in view of the
admitted facts that were available before it. He has also relied on
two unreported decisions of this Court (i) dated 27.02.2013
rendered in L.P.A. No. 200 of 2013 (Smt. Babita Kumari vs. The
State of Bihar and Others) and (ii) 06.03.2013 rendered in L.P.A.
No. 267 of 2013 (Rani Devi vs. The State Election Commission
and Others), to contend that exercising jurisdiction of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is
primarily to be confined to the errors in the decision making
process. He has submitted that the finding recorded by the SEC
cannot be said to be perverse, i.e., without evidence or contrary to
the relevant evidence available before the SEC.