IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.71 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15489 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No.1000 of 2011 ====================================================== Rakesh Pandey at present Chairman PACs Rarhia, S/o- Late Nageshwar Pandey, resident of village Lauria (Areraj), Block Areraj, P.S.- Govindganj, District East Champaran – Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. The Bihar State Election Authority through its Secretary Barrack No. 11. Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Block Development Officer-cum-Election Rarhia, Pacs, Block Araraj, District East Champaran. 4. The Block-co-operative Extension Officer-cum-Deputy Election Officer Rarhia Pac, Block Arearaj, District East Champaran. 5. Rarhia Primary Agriculture co-operative Society Primari Agriculture Co- operative Society having its office at Lauria, P.S. Govindganj, District East Champaran. 6. Shri Shadanand Pandey Son of Late Satya Naran Pandey, R/o- village and P.O. Lauria, P.S. Govindganj, District East Champaran. 7. Smt. Lalmuni Devi w/o- Shri Shadanand Pandey R/o- village Lauria, P.S. Govindganj,Block Areraj District East Champaran 8. Shri Nawal Pandey son of Shri Ramchandra Pandey R/o- village and P.O. Lauria, P.S. Govindganj Block, Areraj District-East Champaran. 9. District Co-operative Officer, Motihari, District East Champaran. - Respondent- Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Keshav Srivastav, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1-5: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rajiv Giri, Advocate For the Respondent No.7: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate ====================================================== 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 14.02.2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C.No.15489 of 2010 the appellant has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is the election of the appellant as Chairman of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Rarhia, Block Araraj P.S. Govindganj, District-East Champaran. In the election held by the Bihar State Election Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”), the appellant won the election over the respondent No.6 by a margin of 12 votes. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.6, in Election Case No. 12 of 2010, complained about the malpractices committed at the election. According to the respondent No.6 the Election Officer had acted in connivance with the appellant. He had committed irregularity by not counting the valid votes cast in favour of the respondent No.6 and in counting the invalid votes cast in favour of the appellant. In view of the said complaint the concerned authority by its order dated 18th February 2010 directed 3 recounting of the votes. It held that there were several irregularities committed in conducting the election. The said order was confirmed in Election Appeal No. 55 of 2010 by the appellate authority by its order dated 30th August 2010 and by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 20th December 2010. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Keshav Srivastava has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the guidelines issued by the Authority and the provisions contained in the Bihar State Election Authority Act, 2008. He has submitted that it is only in a rare case that recounting can be ordered. In the submission of Mr. Srivastava, unless the complaint disclosed specific incidents of alleged irregularity committed at the election, recounting could not have been ordered for mere asking. Unless there were material irregularities committed in conducting the election or in counting of votes, the recounting could not have been ordered. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Bal Mukund Roy versus The State of Bihar [2010(2) PLJR 829]. The Appeal is contested by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Y.V. Giri. Mr. Giri has submitted that the 4 learned Single Judge and both the authorities below have recorded a definite finding that the irregularities were indeed committed in conducting the election/counting the votes. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the aforesaid proposition of law. But, in the instant case both the authorities below have given concurrent finding that several irregularities were committed in conducting the election. In that case the recounting ordered by the authority below can not be held to be illegal or unwarranted. In view of the concurrent finding of irregularities committed in conducting the election, we do not propose to interfere with the order of recounting or the order of the learned Single Judge. For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No. 1000 of 2011 stands disposed of. Bibhash ( R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)