IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9539 of 2009 ***** Sri Bhagwan Singh, son of Late Jang Bahadur Singh, R/o Rampur Diyara, P.S.-Maner, District- Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Patna. 5. The Block Development Officer cum Election Officer, Maner, District-Patna. 6. Sailesh Kumar son of Late Nagina Singh, resident of Bilasi Tola, P.S. Maner, District- Patna. 7. Ram Kumar Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh 8. Bijendra Rai son of Sri Bira Rai. Both serial no. 7 and 8 are resident of village- Hulasi Tola, P.S. Hulasitola, P.S. Maner, District-Patna. 9. Prabhu Dayal Singh son of Late Ganga Singh, resident of village- Prem Tola, P.O. Rampur Diyara, P.S. Maner, District-Patna. 10. Mahatam Rai son of Bankey Rai. 11. Tipan Singh S/o Late Amir Lal Singh. 12. Saroj Kumar Singh, S/o Rameshwar Singh 13. Yogendra Singh S/o Rajendra Singh. Serial no. 10 to 13 are resident of village and P.O.-Hulasi Tola, P.S. Maner, District-Patna. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 12.8.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The order dated 20.5.2009 passed by Sri P.N.Maurya, Munsif, Civil Court, Danapur in Election (Misc.) Case No. 19 of 2006 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of the said order the election petition filed on behalf of the petitioner stands dismissed and the petitioner, therefore, is aggrieved with the said decision. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is evidence that the election was not conducted in the proper manner - 2 - moreso in the tribunal and, therefore, prima facie, petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for interference. But a bare perusal of the decision rendered by the learned Munsif, the Tribunal has categorically recorded that there is no evidence to establish the allegation, the allegations are more made than made out. Not only this there is also no evidence to show that requisite steps had been taken by the petitioner in furtherance to Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Rules, which is a sine qua none for entertaining a prayer for recounting as already held by several decision of the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one of them being Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2004) 6 SCC 331. In absence of any legal infirmity in the order, no interference is required in the writ application. The writ application is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)