IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13594 of 2009 NANHE TIWARI s/o Late Mankeshwar Tiwari Vill.- Jogia Tola, Turha Patti, P.S.- Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Chief Election Officer, Bihar State Election Commission, Patna 3. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (co-operative Committee) West Champaran 4. The DDC-cum-Nodal Officer (pax) West Champaran, Bettiah 5. The District Co-Operative Officer Patna 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Deputy District Election Officer, Bettiah at Bettiah, Distt.- West Champaran 7. Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey s/o Sri Kamlakant Pandey r/o Vipra Nagar, Civil Lines, Buxar, at present the Block Development Officer-Cum- Election Officer, Chanpatia at Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran 8. Deepak Kumar Jha s/o Sri Gyaneshwar Jha moh.- Barharwa, p.o.- Turhpatti, p.s.- Sirisya, Distt.- West Champaran ----------- 03. 03.11.2009 Petitioner had filed his nomination for contesting to the post of Chairman of the PACS, East Turha Patti, West Champaran. Petitioner states that he had filed his nomination and appeared to be only candidate for the said post, on the date of scrutiny suddenly another candidate was found and curiously the nomination of the petitioner vanished. Petitioner’s nomination was later traced but the Returning Officer who is the Block Development Officer also refused to take cognizance thereof. The other person whose nomination surfaced at the time of scrutiny was thus virtually allowed to be elected. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition drew attention to this Court to the nomination paper as filed by the said - 2 - Deepak Kumar Jha who is Respondent No. 8 also in the present application. Indeed the nomination has to be filed in a statutory form with reference to Rule-21N of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules to any material or particulars, the same was left blank including the particulars of the Co-operative Society in respect of whose election the nomination was filed. It is alleged that these conduct of the Returning Officer who is the Block Development Officer as well raises serious issue of bios and mala fide against him. However the facts now remain that the State Election Authority has held that as not even 50% of the quorum of the Managing Committee filed the nomination for election finally. This is so because of proviso of Rule 22(2) of the Rules. Mr. K.B. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Authority submits that as the entire election including the election of the Chairman has to be held afresh, no further orders are really necessary in the writ petition which has now become infructuous. In my view, he is correct. But before departing, I would like to caution the District Authority including the Electoral Officer, the Collector of the District that the allegation against the Block Development Officer are serious and are also born out by their records. The Collector would be well advised to watch closely the functioning of the Block Development - 3 - Officer as the Returning Officer. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)