- (1.)Questioning the legal acceptability and defensibility of the order passed on 15th April, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 9830 of 2006 the present appeal has been preferred under Clause-X of the Letters Patent.
(2.)Sans unnecessary details the expose' of facts are that the respondent No. 5 and the present appellant contested in the election for the post of Pramukh of Sangrampur Panchayat Samiti by filing their nomination papers on 20th July, 2006. The said Panchayat contained directly elected members who constituted the electoral college for the purpose of election of the said Pramukh. The date of election was initially fixed on 28th June, 2006 by the Sub-divisional Officer for conducting the election in the Office of the Block Development Officer but, as put forth by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, the Sub-divisional Officer, with the ulterior motive, cancelled the meeting and fixed the date to 20th July, 2006. It was contended before the writ court that the said adjournment of the meeting was in violation of the guidelines of the Election Commission. It was put forth that the Sub-divisional Officer had deliberately not arranged the video recording of the election process so that there would not be any evidence to show the errors ommitted by him and all these acts have been done to show favour to the present appellant who was the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. It was urged that out of thirteen members only six members cast their votes in favour of the present appellant and seven members cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 5 herein. One of the votes cast by the members was declared invalid by the Sub- divisional Officer on the ground that the cross mark, (X), by the said member was put adjoining to the name of the writ petitioner but was not put in the column after the oblique line in front of the contestant. It was canvassed before the learned single Judge that the intention of the member who had cast the vote in favour of the writ petitioner could be gathered from the cross mark put adjoining to his name and there was no ambiguity or confusion whatsoever to gather the intention, but after the vote was cancelled lottery process was adopted, the present appellant (the respondent No. 5 to the writ petition) was declared as Pramukh.
(3.)It is worth noting, being dissatisfied with the action of the Sub-divisional Officer the writ petitioner approached the State Election Commission for declaring the election of the respondent No. 5 as invalid and to declare him as elected but the application put forth by the writ petitioner before the State Election Commission was rejected by order dated 03rd August, 2006. As is evincible from the order of the learned single Judge the assail to the order passed by the State Election Commission was abandoned and the whole controversy was put to challenge invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The singular ground that was propounded before the learned single Judge is that the ballot paper that was rejected by the Sub-divisional Officer in exercise of power under Rule 96 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (for brevity 'the Rules') was absolutely unjustified and in total transgression of Rules. The learned single Judge adverted to the Rule 96 and expressed the view that the ballot paper could not have been declared invalid under four corners of Rule 96 and hence, the action taken by the Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Election Officer was unjustified. Quite apart from the above the learned single Judge also referred to the guidelines dated 11th August, 2006, contained in Annexure-4 issued by the State Election Commission which specifically relates to the election on post of Pramukh and provides that if the cross marks (X) in the ballot paper is not put in the column prescribed for the same but has been put on the name of the candidate or next to it from which it is clear that the voter had voted in favour of such candidate then such ballot paper would not be treated as invalid. After analyzing the provision the learned single Judge expressed the view that the mark that has been put adjoining to the name of writ petitioner was clear as crystal to show the intention and there was no acceptable reason to reject the said ballot paper. Being of the said view the learned single Judge quashed the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer and directed that the election of the writ petitioner on the post of Pramukh was valid and accordingly so ordered.