IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18014 of 2009 1. ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI BINDESHWARI RAI R/O VILL.- BISHUNPUR RAJ KHAND, VIA-BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER PANCHAYATI RAJ BIHAR, PATNA, SONE BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-ELECTION OFFICER VAISHALI, HAJIPUR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-RETURNING OFFICER BIDUPUR, P.O. & P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 5. AJAY KUMAR JHA S/O SHRI HARE NARAYAN JHA R/O VILL.- CHAK MAINGAR, P.O.- BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 6. AJIT KUMAR SINGH S/O YUDHISHTER SINGH R/O VILL.- RAMDAULI, P.O. & P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BULAN SARAI, P.O.- BIDUPUR BAZAR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 7. ABHIMANYU KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE LAL SINGH R/O VILL.- SHITALPUR, P.O.- BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 8. INDRAJEET SINGH KUNAL S/O SRI KRISHNA SINGH R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- BISHUNPUR RAJ KHAND, VIA - BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 9. DILIP SINGH S/O BALESHWAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- CHAK MAINGAR, VIA - BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 10. NISHA DEVI W/O SRI AMIT KUMAR R/O VILLAGE & P.O. - CHAK MAINGAR, VIA - BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 11. PARAMHANSH SINGH S/O CHHATTAR SINGH R/O VILL.- AMER, P.O.- NAWANAGAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 12. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH S/O SUKHDEO SINGH R/O VILL.- SHITALPUR, P.O. & P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 13. BALRAM GIRI S/O LATE BANKE GIRI R/O VILL.- RAGHOPUR CHATURANG, P.O.- BISHUNPUR, RAJKHAND, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 14. BRAJ KISHORE JHA S/O BALESHWAR JHA R/O VILL.- CHAK MAINGAR, P.O. & P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 15. MADNESH KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM SAGAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- BISHUNPUR RAJ KHAND, VIA - BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 16. RAMESH RAI S/O RAM DHYAN RAI R/O VILL.- AMER, P.O.- NAWANAGAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 17. VIJAY CHOUDHARY S/O MAHAVIR CHOUDHARY R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- BISHUNPUR RAJ KHAND, VIA - BIDUPUR, P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 18. SHAMBHU RAI S/O YUGESHWAR RAI R/O VILL.- AMER, P.O. - NAWANAGAR, P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 19. SANJAY JHA S/O ASHOK JHA R/O VILLAGE & P.O. - CHAK MAINGAR, VIA - BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 20. BABY DEVI W/O RAMESH KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- AMER, P.O. - NAWANAGAR, P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- 2. 18.01.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State Election Commission. The petitioner is the unsuccessful candidate in the Panchayat elections questioning the win of Respondent no. 6. Learned Munsif has dismissed Election Case No. 30 of 2006. 2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent no. 6 was not eligible to file his nomination on account of the fact that his name figured in other electoral constituency. The second ground urged is that the trial court should have directed recounting in view of allegations of illegality in the election process. He relies upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 204 (Shailendra Pratap Singh & another Vrs State of Bihar & others) stated to have been affirmed by the LPA Court. Learned Counsel for the State Election Commission submits that the orders of this Court are pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the operation thereof has been stayed. Rule 41 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 provides for scrutiny of nomination papers. The candidate, his election agent and/or proposer are required to be present at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers. Therefore, objection of the present nature sought to be taken in the suit for rejection of the nomination were first to be raised at the time of scrutiny. A person who wins an election reflecting the popular mandate cannot be interfered with lightly especially when opportunity was available to those under the law to question his nomination but they chose not to do so. The trial court in no uncertain terms at para 23 has noticed that no objection of any nature were filed at the time of scrutiny of nomination by the petitioner with regard to the candidature of Respondent no. 6 and which was found valid upon scrutiny. The facts in the case of Shailendra Pratap Singh sought to be relied upon were fundamentally different as 3 can be noticed from para 4 that objection to the nomination had been filed at the time of scrutiny. In so far as the allegations with regard to counting of votes is concerned, the trial court has recorded a finding at para 31 of the judgment that the counting was over at 2.00 O’ clock and the results declared at 2.30. The petitioner gave his application for recounting after the counting was over. The Court finds no reason to interfere lightly with the judgment impugned. The writ application stands dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)