IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18084 of 2009 1. UDAI SHANKAR SINGH S/O SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SINGH R/O VILL SHARMA, P.O.LAKHISARAI, P.S.LAKHISARAI,DISTT- LAKHISARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LAKHISARAI 4. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,(PANCHAYAT) LAKHISARAI 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER LAKHISARAI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAMGARH CHOWK, LAKHISARAI 7. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION BIHAR, SONE BHAWAN,3RD FLOOR, PATNA-800001 8. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION BIHAR, SONE BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, PATNA-800001 9. ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI LAXMAN PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL SONDHI, P.S.LAKHISARAI, VIA RAMGARH CHOWK,DISTT- LAKHISARAI, AT PRESENT MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT -SHARMA , WARD NO.3, BLOCK RAMGARH CHOWK, DISTT-LAKHISARAI ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the State Election Commission :- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. S.K. Singh, AC to G.P.-V -------------- 2. 18.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the State Election Commission. Respondent no. 9 was a candidate for the Panchayat Election. The petitioner was not a contesting candidate. The allegation is that respondent no. 9 suppressed in his affidavit at the time of nomination that there was a warrant pending against him. The entry in the nomination form to the contrary is an afterthought. Disqualifications prescribed under the statute which go at the very root of the eligibility to 2 hold office and those which do not go at the root, cannot be considered at par. Learned counsel for the petitioner from Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 is unable to demonstrate any disqualification of the nature going to the very root of the authority of respondent no. 9, to hold the post. The State Election Authority by a reasoned and discussed order has rejected the petitioner’s claim that there was any subsequent insertion in the nomination form of respondent no. 9 with regard to any warrant pending against him. In the entirety of the matter, the Court in exercise of powers of judicial review is not persuaded that the impugned order of the Commission dated 30.9.2009 warrants interference. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)