IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.557 of 2010 RUBY KUMARI W/O SRI VINAY KUMAR R/O VILL.- REWAR, GRAM PANCHAYAT- ERRURI, P.S. PAKARI BAWA, DISTT.- NAWADA VERSUS 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA THROUGH THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER NAWADA, DISTT. - NAWADA 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER (PANCHAYAT) PAKARI BARWA BLOCK, DISTT.- NAWADA 5. SOHANI DEVI W/O AMIRAK MAHTO R/O VILL.- LAXMIPUR BARDIHA, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 6. JULI DEVI W/O PRAVIN SINGH R/O VILL.- BHALUKI, P.O. BUDHAULI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 7. PRAMILA DEVI W/O SADANAND PANDEY R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. ERRURI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT. NAWADA 8. MINTA DEVI W/O SURESH YADAV R/O VILL.- BALIARI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 9. MINTA SINHA W/O NARESH PRASAD R/O VILL.- ERRURI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 10. RANJU DEVI W/O ARUN SINGH R/O VILL. ERRURI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 11. REWATI DEVI W/O PAPPU KUMAR T/O BILL.- BHALUKI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 12. SANJU DEVI W/O MANISH KUMAR R/O VILL.- REWAR, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 13. SABI DEVI W/O BALMIKI CHAUHAN R/O VILL.- ERRURI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 14. SABITA DEVI W/O KAMESHWAR MAHTO R/O VILL.- ERRURI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA 15. SARO DEVI W/O NARESH MANJHI R/O VILL.- ERRURI, P.S. PAKARI BARWA, DISTT.- NAWADA For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K.Manglam, Advoate. For the Respondent No. 5 : M/s Durgesh Nandan and Hriday Pd. Singh, Advocates. For the Election Commission : M/s R.S.Pradhan and Rajiv Lochan, Advocates. ----------- 6. 06-08-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State Election Commission as well as learned counsel for - 2 - Respondent no. 5, who is the main contesting party being the returned candidate. Respondent nos. 6 to 15 are not contesting parties as they did not contest in the court below. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 16th Nov. 2009 by which learned Munsif, Nawada dismissed Misc. (Election) Case No. 10 of 2006 and affirmed election of Respondent no. 5. 3. It is not in the dispute that election for the post of Mukhiya of Erruri Gram Panchayat of District Nawada was held in the year 2006 and was contested between the petitioner and Respondent no. 5 along with others. After the voting, counting was done on 11.06.2006 which was concluded on 12-06-2006 in which it was found that petitioner received 327 votes whereas Respondent no. 5 received 297 votes, but the votes of petitioner was reduced by 30 votes and the votes of Respondent no. 5 was enhanced by 11 votes due to the miscalculation found in the earlier counting of votes. 4. Against the aforesaid election of Respondent no. 5, petitioner filed election petition bearing Misc.(Election ) Case No. 10 of 2006 in which after considering the pleadings of the parties issues were framed on the basis of which evidences were led. However, at the time of arguments, petition dated 07-07-2009(Annexure-8) was filed by Respondent no. 5 submitting Form-20, Part-I and Form-20 Part-II, and it was stated that over writings and cuttings in the original Form- 20,Part- 1 and Form-20 Part-II were done during the counting of votes and hence order be passed according to Original Form-20 Part-I and Form-20 Part- - 3 - II. This prayer of Respondent no. 5 was supported by the State Counsel in his petition dated 07-07-2009(Annexure 8/1). Petitioner, who was also the election petitioner also filed a petition on 10-07-2009 (Annexure-9), supporting the claim of Respondent no. 5. 5. The statement of the contesting respondent supported by the authorities as well as petitioner assumes great importance as the question involved was whether the original Form-20 Part-I and Form-20 Part-II were to be considered in the case or the copies thereof provided in the case would be considered as in the copies there were no cuttings or over writings. In the said circumstances, the admission of the contesting respondent in his petition dated 07-07-2009(Annexure-8) that the original Form-20 Part-I and Form-20 Part-II should be considered for deciding the petition, should have been considered by the court below while deciding the election petition. 6. However, from a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the learned court below dated 16-11-2009, it is quite apparent that it completely overlooked the said petitions of all the parties to the case and went on to decide the matter on issues, which were earlier contested between the parties and which did not remain available after filing of the said petitions. In this regard there is dispute between learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent as to whether the said petitions were pressed by the parties or not, but once such important petitions were on record, it was the duty of the court below to consider the same and decide the matter in accordance with law. - 4 - 7. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the learned court below is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the court of Munsif, Nawada to consider the said election petition afresh, keeping in view the aforesaid petitions filed by the parties. However, the parties would be entitled to substantiate their pleadings with respect to the said petitions. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with a direction to the court below to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within four months. 8. Let the record produced by Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Advocate on behalf of the State Election Commission be returned to him immediately so that it may be sent to the authority concerned and if required may be produced before the learned court below, as and when required. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)