IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17323 of 2010 1. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Bhola Singh. 2. Abhijit Chatterjee, S/o Sri Shanti Ranjan Chatterjee. 3. Naresh Kumar Jha, S/o Late Markandey Jha. 4. Manish Kumar, S/o Ramesh Prasad Singh. 5. Vikash Kumar, S/o Sri Gupteshwar Prasad. 6. Jyoti Shankar, S/o Binod Kumar Sinha. 7. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Sri Vidya Sagar Gupta. 8. Deepak Kumar, S/o Late Sitaram Singh. 9. Jawaid Naser, S/o Late Syed Mohammad Abunassar. 10. Shambhu Nath Srivastava, S/o Sri Hari Shankar Pd. Sinha. 11. Chandra Bansi Sahay, S/o Late Rajendra Prasad. All working in the office of Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch- 4, Jeevan Prakash Building, Fraser Road, Patna, P.O. + P.S.-Fraser Road, District- Patna. …….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Law & Company Matter, Government of India. 2. The Election Commission of India, through the Chief Election Officers, Bihar, Patna. 3. The State of Bihar through its District Election Officer-Cum-District Magistrate, Patna. 4. Life Insurance Corporation of India through Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C., Patna Branch- 4, Frazer Road, Patna. ……… Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, A.C. to SC-XI. For L.I.C. of India : Mr. Raj Dular Sah, Advocate. ----------- 3. 28-10-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar as well as learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2. Petitioners, who are employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna have filed this writ petition challenging orders dated 1.10.2010 (Annexue-1 series) by which the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna has directed them to participate in the election duty of the ensuing election of the 2 Legislative Assembly and also for direction to the Chief Election Officer and the District Election Officer not to appoint the petitioners on any election duty and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The claim of the petitioners is that they are the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation and hence as per the provision of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 their services can be made available to any returning officer for carrying out the duty in connection with an election only on the request from the Regional Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State and the Election Commission cannot exercise untrammelled powers in that regard. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Election Commission of India-Appellant V. State Bank of India, Patna and others-Respondents reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1078. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners came to know about the orders issued by the Chief Electoral Officer dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) by which the amended provision of Section 159 of the Act was relied upon and direction was given to every local authority; every university established or incorporated by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act; any government company and any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act to make available its employees for the purpose of election. He further submits that the petitioners had no knowledge about either the amendment of Section 159 of the 3 Representation of the People Act, 1951 or of the aforesaid order issued on 10.09.2010 by the Chief Electoral Officer, Patna (Annexure- A) although it was the duty of the authority concerned to circulate the same and sent information about the amendment and the order to all departments and authorities concerned, but without doing any such thing it was clear arbitrariness on its part to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is only the Chief Electoral Officer, who can send requisition and not the District Magistrate, who is only a District Election Officer. 5. Considering the entire arguments of learned counsel for the Union of India, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and its authorities, learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India it is quite apparent that vide Amending Act, 12 of 1998, Section 159 of the Representation of People Act was amended with effect from 23.12.1997 and the amended Section 159 provides as follows: 159. Staff of certain authorities to be made available for election work.- (1) The authorities specified in sub-section (2) shall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under clause (4) of article 324 or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election. (2) The following shall be the authorities for the purposes of sub-section (1), namely:- (i) every local authority; (ii) every university established or incorporated by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act; (iii) a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); 4 (iv) any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided, directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government. 6. In that view of the matter the old Section 159 of the Act will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and the decision of the Apex Court cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in case of Election Commission of India Vs. the State Bank of India and Election Commission of India Vs. Northern Zone Insurance Employees Association (Supra) based on the un-amended provision of Section 159, also will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, cause of action of which has arisen only in 2010. 7. According to the said provision of Section 159 as amended in 1998, which is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that on the request of the Regional Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, the authorities concerned are to make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duty in connection with an election and the said authority vide Sub Section (2) included every local authority, every university established or incorporated by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, any Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act. 5 8. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that Life Insurance Corporation of India having been established under a Central Government Act, the said amended provision is squarely applicable to its authorities and staff. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Magadh University Post Graduate Teachers Association, Bodh Gaya Vs. The Bihar State Election Commission reported in 2009(2) PLJR 640. 9. In the said circumstances, the petitioners being squarely covered under the amended provision of Section 159 of the Act, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 10. In any view of the matter the petitioners have accepted that they have not disobeyed the order of the District Election Officer and had already taken training under protest. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)