IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9551 of 2008 MEENA KUMARI w/o anand Kishore Bhagt, r/o village- Bhairopur, P.O. & P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. Versus 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner. 2. The District Election Officer, Saran art Chapra. 3. The Returning Officer (Panchayat), Sadar Block, Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra. 4. The Assistant Returning Officer (Panchayat), Sadar Block, Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra, 5. Jai Mitra Devi w/o Amaranth Rai, resident of village- Bajitpur (Jaitiya), P.O. Mehrauli, P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. 6. Urmila Devi w/o Shyam Narrayan Chaurasiya, resident of village – Bhairopur, P.O. & P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. 7. Nisha Devi w/o Bidya Rai, resident of village- Khawaspur Kala, , P.O. & P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. 8. Neelam Devi w/o Krishna Maharaj, resident of village- Ismailpur, , P.O. & P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. 9. Pramila Devi w/o Lalan Chaurasiya.resident of village- Bhairopur, , P.O. & P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. 10. Pramila Devi w/o Arun Singh,resident of village – Daftarpur, , P.O. & P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. 11. Sharvo Devi /o Lakshman Prasad Chaurasiya, resident of village- Gopalpur, P.O. Mehrauli, P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S/B.K.Manglam. For the Commission : Mr.Sanjeev Nikesh For private respondent: Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar. 5 31.3.2010 This writ application challenges the order of Munsif II, Chapra in Election Petition No. 8 of 2006 whereby he dismissed the election petition , as filed by the petitioner, challenging the election of respondent no.5. The only ground for assailing the judgment by Mr.S.B.K.Manglam is that issue no.3, as framed, was with regard to corrupt practice adopted by respondent no.5. In support whereof petitioner had brought on record various facts including alleged public - 2 - petition. The fact that out of 280 votes cast on booth no. 225, 279 were in favour of respondent no.5 and other documentary and oral evidences. Respondent no.5 also brought on record various evidences to contradict with it . The submission is that the trial Court noted the evidences of both the sides and straightaway gave a decision in favour of respondent no.5. There was no discussion at all as to why evidences brought on record by the petitioner were not worthy of consideration or why the evidences as brought by respondent no.5 were over weigh the evidences brought by the petitioner . I is well settled principle of law that a judgment has to be a reasoned judgment. Reasoned judgment is link between the facts found and the decision taken. This is all necessary where a judicial order is being passed upon a litigation between the two parties. In the present case the two ends are there i.e. facts found an the decision but how the Court has arrived from the facts found and the decision taken is not to be found. Thus, finding in regard to issue no.3 is unsupported by reason. That being so, I am left with no option but to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration of issue no.3 on basis of evidences in relation thereto available on record. The trial Court will hear the parties on this issue once again and then pass final order in that regard. The order, so passed, the final judgment in the election petition would follow afresh. As no further evidence is to be recorded but only argument has to be heard on this limited issue and decision pronounced supporter by reason, it is expected that within two months of production of a copy - 3 - of this order, the trial Court would conclude the proceedings in this regard. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)