IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7629 of 2009 MADHULIKA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: M/s.Ashok Kumar Singh & P.K.Singh Advocates For the State: Mr. S.K.Jha, A.C. to S.C.-9 For the State Election Commission: Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate ---------- 2 8.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State as well as the learned counsel for the State Election Commission. Challenge in the present writ application is to the order dated 8th May, 2009 which has been passed in Election Petition No. 1 of 2007 by the court of Sub-Judge 2nd, Biharsharif at Nalanda. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a case of improper acceptance of nomination paper on the ground that the State Election Commission in its general notice issued in Daily Newspaper Hindustan had laid down few guidelines with regard to who shall be a voter for the purpose of election of Nagar Parishad. It is indicated therein that a person cannot be a voter for more than one place and the person cannot be a voter if his name is registered in the Panchayat. Contention of the petitioner is that contrary to this direction of the State Election Commission the nomination of the candidate in question came to be accepted which amounted to improper acceptance of the nomination paper. On the pleadings and evidence issues came to - 2 - be framed and the improper acceptance of nomination paper of Tanuja Devi has become the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. Primary contention of the petitioner before the election tribunal was that the nomination paper could not be accepted in view of the guidelines contained in annexure-3 which is the paper publication made by the State Election Commission. The Court has gone through the decision rendered by the Election Tribunal and the question raised in this regard. Paragraph-15 of the decision deals with the question which is also urged before this Court and the Tribunal has discussed that in terms of section 43 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and Rules framed therein there are specific grounds on which the nomination of a candidate can be either accepted or rejected. Since what has been urged by the petitioner is not one of the grounds included in the statue, the election of the returned candidate cannot be set aside or interfered with. The Court has no hesitation in recording that the law on the issue being a codified law the subsequent guidelines issued by the State Election Commission would not have altered the grounds of rejection or acceptance of the nomination paper which has already been laid down by the legislature. At the best it can be termed as information to the people or to the Returning Officer while dealing with such matters. To accept the proposition that notice in the news - 3 - paper shall also be a ground for setting aside the election since the returned candidate’s name figures in the voter list at more than two places will have far fetched consequence when the law does not envisage so. Since the Tribunal has not erred and its decision is in conformity with the law laid down in this regard the impugned order cannot be interfered with. This writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)