IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10139 of 2009 ====================================================== Neelam Devi, wife of Shri Ramanand Mandal, resident of Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, Lakhisarai Ward No. 19, P.O. + P.S.+ District Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger 3. Shri Prem Kumar Jha, District Magistrate, Lakhisarai 4. Shri Lalit Narayan Dubey, Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Lakhisarai 5. The State Election Commission, through its Secretary, Sone Bhawan, Patna 6. The State Election Commissioner, Sone Bhawan, Patna 7. The District Magistrate –cum- District Returning Officer, Lakhisarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kr.Sharma, Advocagte Mr. Manoj Kumar Mr. Dinesh Kr.Sahay For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghvendra Kr. Singh, AC to GA III For State Election Commission: Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN) 3 20-09-2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the State Election Commission. The petitioner was elected as a Chief Councillor in the Nagar Parishad, Lakhisarai. The petitioner resigned from the post of the Chief Councillor and the said resignation was accepted on 04.07.2009. After the petitioner resigned from the said post, the Executive Officer i.e. the Divisional Patna High Court CWJC No.10139 of 2009 (3) dt.20-09-2011 2 / 4 2 Commissioner drew a proceeding against the petitioner and served a show cause notice on her to reply to the allegations made against the petitioner. The allegations leveled are eight in number. It is alleged that the petitioner had made certain interpolations in the proceedings of the Nagar Parishad on different dates. The petitioner filed a detailed show cause explaining each and every allegations. From the order impugned dated 23.07.2009, it would appear that without considering the reply of the petitioner and giving reasons for rejecting the show cause, the Divisional Commissioner has held that the petitioner would not be entitled to contest the elections for the rest of the period i.e. May, 2012 to the post of Chief Councillor. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are two folds. It is firstly submitted that the petitioner had already resigned from the post of the Chief Councillor and as such, this order was not warranted. The second submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been debarred from standing for the elections as a Chief Councillor on the basis of such allegations as leveled against him. In order to support his case, the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sharda Patna High Court CWJC No.10139 of 2009 (3) dt.20-09-2011 3 / 4 3 Kailash Mittal vs. the State of M.P. & Others (2010 (2) SCC 319). In this case, there were allegations against the President of the Nagar Parishad, Jora in the district of Muraina in the State of Madhya Pradesh. On perusal of the order of the Apex Court, it appears that the allegations were somewhat similar to the allegations made in the present case against the petitioner. While considering all aspect of the matter, the Apex Court came to the conclusion as follows:- “Keeping in view the nature of the power and the consequences that flows on its exercise, it has to be held that such power can be invoked by the State Government for very strong and weighty reasons. Such a power is not to be exercised for minor irregularities in discharge of duties by the holder of the elected post.” (emphasis added by me) There should be sufficient materials to show that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of her duties before the petitioner can be debarred from standing in the election. In the result, this Court set aside the order dated 23.07.2009 (Annexure-4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Misc. Case No. 38 of 2009 as it is completely a non-speaking order and has been passed without Patna High Court CWJC No.10139 of 2009 (3) dt.20-09-2011 4 / 4 4 application of mind. This writ application is thus allowed. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)