IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 13643 of 2009 Jawaharlal Ram, son of late Sakaldeep Ram, resident of village – Kasmar, P S – Sonepur, District – Saran - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Bihar State Election Authority, Barrack No 11, Old Secretariat, Patna through its Commissioner 3 Block Development Officer, Sonepur –cum- Election Officer of Kasmar Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Sonepur Block, District – Saran 4 Block Cooperative Extension Officer, Sonepur –cum- Assistant Election Officer of Kasmar Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Sonepur Block, District – Saran -Respondents 01st Party 5 Kasmar Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society having its office at Kasmar, P S – Sonepur, District – Saran -Respondent 02nd Party 6 Shri Ranvijay Singh, son of late Maujilal Singh, resident of Village – Kasmar, P S – Sonepur, District – Saran 7 The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Saran Division, Chapra 8 Shri Birendra Kumar Patel, son of Sachidanand Singh, resident of Village – Kasmar, P S – Sonepur, District – Saran -Respondents 03rd Party ----------- 2 26.10.2009 Heard all the parties. The petitioner had filed his nomination paper for the post of Chairman of Kasmar Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society. His nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that there was a surcharge proceeding pending against him. Petitioner states that the surcharge proceedings were initiated on the same very day ex parte for an alleged due of 1989 which, in fact, had been paid in that year itself. The surcharge proceedings were, thus, not only wholly without jurisdiction but mala fide. He, thus, submits that his nomination was wrongly rejected and consequently respondent No 6 got elected unopposed and, as such, his election is also bad. It is not in dispute that the action of initiating surcharge proceeding has now been subject - 2 - matter of challenge by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and is pending. That is the gravemen of charge against the petitioner. Unless those proceedings are avoided, it cannot be held that rejection of petitioner’s nomination was bad or mala fide for any purpose. Till such a decision is made, the rejection of nomination would be valid. Further, the election process having taken place and the election result being under challenge, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to get a finding from the Joint Registrar of wrongful initiation of surcharge proceeding concluded and file an election petition challenging the election where all questions of fact and law can be raised. The writ petition, thus, at this stage, in the facts and circumstances indicated above, is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)