IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15565 of 2009 UMESH PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE HANUMAN PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- SIRSI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR……………………….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ELECTION AUTHORITY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, DARBHANGA 6. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 7. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-RETURNING OFFICE, BIBHUTIPUR, SAMASTIPUR 9. THE BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION OFFICER, BIBHUTIPUR, SAMASTIPUR 10.DILIP NARAYAN SINGH, S/O SHRI BISHUNOO KANT PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILL.- EKDARA, P.O.- MAHTHI, P.S. MAHTHI, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 11.SHAMBHU KUMAR YADAV, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL. SIRSI, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr.L.K. Yadav, Advocate. For the Election Authority : Mr. M.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG-9 ----------- 03/ 26.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to hold enquiry and take appropriate action against the officials who have committed irregularities in preparation of the voter list, on the basis of which election has been held on 16.10.2009 and result has been declared on 21.10.2009 of Primary Agriculture Credit Society, Mahthi South, 2 Block Bibhutipur in the district of Samstipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rules for making voters’ list were thoroughly violated by the authorities concerned, although it was the Society which was empowered to list the voters. He further submits that Annexure-5 (letter of D.C.O.) specifically shows that the members whose share capital is not deposited, cannot be members of the Society and that the names of a number of voters were duplicated in the voter’s list. 4. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No.7353 of 2009 which was dismissed on 02.07.2009 with the observations that the petitioner must first approach the competent authority pointing out the abrasion and discrepancy in the concerned voters list and if there is failure there may be an occasion for this court to look into the matter. The said order passed by this court dated 02.07.2009 is not applicable now, as the scenario has absolutely changed due to the election held on 16.10.2009 and result declared on 21.10.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order of this court dated 12.01.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13595 of 2009 in which the Secretary of the respective PACS was directed to submit a true and correct voters’ list to the District Election Officer who published the same as draft voters’ list giving a minimum of one week time to the electorates to file their objection against wrongful inclusions and exclusions of voters. It 3 appears from the said order that it was passed when neither election was held nor the results were declared. Hence the said order also is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, in which elections have been held and the authorities have already declared the result. 6. Hence the petitioner should have challenged the entire election by way of filing an Election Petition before the appropriate authority under the Act, where he can raise all the points taken in this writ petition, as has been held by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 11.01.2010 passed in L.P.A. No.1423 of 2009. The petitioner has an appropriate alternative remedy but without using the said alternative he has filed this writ petition which appears to be absolutely against the basic principle involved in filing writ cases, specially when the specific provision of the Bihar State Election Authority Act, 2008 has already been provided for raising such disputes. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )