IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8497 of 2011 SMT.SHANTI DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 13.05.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the State Election Commission. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that order of the State Election Commission dated 26.4.2011 cancelling the poll held at Booth No. 144 in Samrhigarh Gram Panchayat is unjustified as the District Magistrate cum District Election Officer (Panchayat) had not made any recommendation with regard to the same. The recommendation was only with regard to Booth Nos. 39 & 40.The impugned order is therefore arbitrary, without application of mind. Learned Counsel for the Commission has relied upon the recitals in the report of the District Election Officer to submit that the matter falls under the statutory jurisdiction of the State Election Commission under Rule 71 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006. Rule 71 provides that the Returning Officer is required to report the circumstances with regard to any interruption/obstruction/violence or any other specific cause during the poll process to the Commission. The Commission shall then consider and if satisfied direct for fresh poll on the specified date. The District Magistrate cum District Election Officer with regard to Booth No. 144 himself states that the Presiding Officer Diary was perused and enquiries made from the Presiding Officer and the Patrolling Party. Some ballots were looted, loot of the voters list was done and some ballots forcibly inserted into the ballot box. This incident occurred at 5.30. PM. That did not constitute sufficient ground for repoll. Conducting a fair and free election is the primary obligation and jurisdiction of the State Election Commission. It is not for the writ Court to interfere with the process of poll unless the order of the State Election Commission in a particular case may appear to be outrightly arbitrary and devoid of statutory jurisdiction. In the present case from the recitals contained in the report of the District Magistrate cum District Election Officer the Court is satisfied that sufficient ground was made out for a repoll. The Commission has acted rightly by rejecting the suggestion to the contrary. There is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)