IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18071 of 2009 1. KHAKHSANA BEGUM @ KHAKSHANA W/O AFSAR ALAM ABDAL R/O VILL- RANI, P.O. DHANPATGUNJ, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KISHANGANJ 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-RETURNING OFFICER KOCHADHAMAN, KISHANGANJ 4. NASEEMA KHATOON W/O ABDUL HAMID R/O VILL- MOUDAH, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 5. AJMERA KHATOON (SAH) W/O NASIM SAH R/O VILL- KANDIBHASA, P.S. KOCHADHAMN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 6. ABEDA (DAFALI) W/O HASIBUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- MOUDAH, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 7. GYANBATI W/O SURANLAL MANDAL R/O VILL- MOUDAH, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 8. GULCHERA W/O KAISAR SAH R/O VILL- MOUDAH, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 9. NASEHA BEGUM W/O AYUB SAH R/O VILL- HANDIBHASA, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 10. BIBI GULKAN W/O MD. ABID SHAN R/O VILL- HANDIBHASA, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 11. LALITA DEVI W/O DHARAMBIR MANDAL R/O VILL- MOUDHA, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 12. SAYERA KHATOON W/O IDRIS SAH R/O VILL- MOUDH, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ 13. HUSNA ARA W/O SHAKIL AHMAD R/O VILL- MOUDH, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Vinay Kirti Singh and Bijendra Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Maruth Nath Pandey,A.C. to S.C.XI For the Commission : Mr.R.S.Pradhan,Sr.Adv and Mr. Sanjeev NIkesh. 2 28.4.2010 Petitioner has challenged the judgment of Election Tribunal being Munsif-I, Kishanganj in E.P.No.13/2006, dated 30.10.2009. By that judgment petitioner, who was opposite party no.1, has been declared to be wrongly elected on basis of a wrong Caste Certificate. The judgment is challenged on two grounds .Firstly, whether the - 2 - petitioner suffered a disqualification or not is a matter within the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission in terms of Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and as such beyond the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal under Section 137 of the Act. The second ground of challenge is that the judgment has been rendered ex parte without valid notice to the petitioner . Having heard the parties, in my view, both the grounds are misconceived and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons noted herein : So far as first challenge is concerned, it is based on the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Act as it exists today. The situation was materially different when the said election petition was filed in the year 2006. Section 136(2) has been substituted by Amendment Act 10 of 2009. In Section 136(2), as originally enacted, renders disqualification under Section 136(1) were not there. It was introduced, for the first time, in 2009. It is only in the year 2009 or thereafter such an application could be filed before the State Election Commission. Earlier the election tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, this ground is misconceived. So far as second ground is concerned, about the judgment being ex parte , a reference to the judgment would show that upon petitioner refusing to receive notice, the tribunal did not proceed in the matter till steps for substituted service were taken. Notice was duly published in local newspaper having wide circulation in locality. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application and it is - 3 - accordingly dismissed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)