IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5345 of 2009 AJIT KUMAR YADAV . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner: Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Adv. For the State : G.P. 8. ----------- 4/ 06/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who was a candidate for the Panchayat Elections questions the judgment and order dated 14.1.2009 passed in Election Petition No.26/06 by the Munsif, Katihar dismissing the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the counting of the votes on 17.6.2006/18.6.2006, grave irregularities were committed for which the petitioner had protested, both in writing and orally during the counting itself as required by Rule-79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 ((hereinafter referred to as the Rules) notwithstanding which the counting continued ultimately resulting in a declaration to his prejudice. The petitioner himself along with his witnesses did produce sufficient oral evidence of objections made during counting by the petitioner and his other witnesses. Additionally, by Ext.1 the petitioner had, in fact, given in writing an objection to the Election Commission while the counting was going on with regard - 2 - to protest against malpractices being committed during counting. The trial court was not correct in dismissing the suit for non-compliance of Rule-79 inasmuch as the petitioner allegedly gave no written intimation of the irregularities. The trial court has held that Ext.1 was without an affidavit and contained no date. If the petitioner had sent it by courier to the Election Commission, as is contended on his behalf from the annexures to the supplementary affidavit, it was for him to lead proper evidence of the courier agent with regard to the delivery, date etc. of the written complaint. The petitioner did not do so. His contention that he also made a written complaint to the District Magistrate on 18.6.2006 has been considered by holding that no such document had been exhibited. Exts. 2 and 3, documents of a written complaint, were much beyond time on 23.6.2006 insufficient to fulfil compliance with Rule-79 of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)