IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6698 of 2011 GEETA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State Election Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her nomination for the post of Sarpanch from the Noorchak Panchayat in Bisfi Block, District-Madhubani was found to be valid on scrutiny and her name figured in Form-7 published on 15.3.2011. Having learnt that thereafter instead of allotting an election symbol to her and publishing her name also in Form-9 to the contrary, her name has been removed from the category of valid nomination. The petitioner has represented to the State Election Commission which has given appropriate directions in the matter on 28.3.2011, notwithstanding which no developments had taken place preventing her from contesting election which are to be held on 30.4.2011. Reliance is placed on a Bench decision reported in 2001(1) PLJR 815 (Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar). Counsel for the Commission prays for time to seek instructions. The Court does not consider the same necessary at this stage. The order of the Commission dated 28.3.2011 2 addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-District Electoral Officer (Panchayat), Madhubani notices explicitly the grievance of the petitioner. It then directs for an enquiry that if her name had been published in Form-7, why was it not published in Form-9. Whether as alleged her nomination papers have been made intentionally to disappear. If her allegations are found to be correct, her name may be added in Form-9 and an election symbol allotted to her. In the case of Vijay Kumar Verma (supra), a finding of fact was arrived at that the returning officer had acted arbitrarily in rejecting the nomination leading to punishment imposed on him also. The State Election Commission had expressed its difficulty to restore the nomination of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the nomination was rejected on false and baseless ground confirmed in enquiry. It was in that factual background that the directions came to be given. The judgment relied upon may or may not have application depending on the factual outcome of the enquiry directed by the State Election Commission. To this Court, the order of the Commission dated 28.2.2011 is complete in itself in all respects. The orders of the Commission are made to be complied with by subordinates and implemented by the Commission itself. 3 The writ petition is disposed with direction to the Commission to ensure that its order dated 28.3.2011 is forthwith complied in accordance with law so that circumstances warranting, the petitioner is not left without a remedy based on the allegations made by her keeping in mind that the elections are to be held on 30.4.2011. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)