IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13690 of 2007 Md.Nasim Akhter, son of Md. Abdulrajjaque, resident of village + P.O. Ramzanpur, P.S. Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura Versus 1. The State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna through the State Election Commission 2. The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Path, Patna (Bihar) 3. The Collector-cum-District Electoral Officer, Dist. Sheikhpura 4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Electoral Officer-cum- Returning Officer, Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura 5. The Block Agricultural Officer-cum-Assistant Returning Officer, Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura 6. Pankaj Kumar, son of Shri Tirpit Narayan Singh, resident of village + P.O. Samas Bujurg, P.S. Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura 7. Jayanandan Singh, son of Late Sarjug Singh, resident of village + P.O. Samas Bujurg, P.S. Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura 8. Manoj Paswan, son of Sri Pavitra Paswan, resident of village + P.O. Samas Bujurg, P.S. Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura 9. Mithilesh Kumar, son of Sri Pyare Mahto, Vill. Qutubchak, P.O. Ramzanpur, P.S. Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura 10. Md. Shaba Imam, son of Md. Atta Imam, resident of village + P.O. Ramzanpur, P.S. Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State Election:- M/S R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Commission and Rajeev Lochan, Advocate. ----------- 2. 21.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sheikhpura in Election Case No. 6/2006 by which the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 15, Order 19 Rule 3 and Section 108 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Election Rules, 2006 and Sections 83, 87 and 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 has been dismissed. The petitioner is a winning candidate and the grounds of such objection petition were that verification outside the Court campus is not valid in the eye of law, the father’s name and address of - 2 - respondent no. 6 was not mentioned and such other matters. On a consideration of the same, the learned court below found the objection petition to be without any basis and force and rejected the same. This Court does not find it a fit case in which interference in its writ jurisdiction is called for with respect to such matters that too at the instance of winning candidate whose sole purpose is to somehow delay the disposal of the election petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)