IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1033 of 2009 MADHULIKA WIFE OF PRASHANT PRAKASH, R/O PAHARPURA, P.O. & P.S.- BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT- NALAND ……………………….PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ELECTION COMMISSIONR, BIHAR STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, NALANDA, BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-RETURNING OFFICER, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA 5. TANUJA DEVI, WIFE OF RANJAY KUMAR VERMA, R/O MOHALLA-PAHARPURA, P.O & P.S.- BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA 6. ANITA KUMARI WIFE OF GOPAL MEHTA, R/O MOHALLA- MEHARPAR, P.S.- LAHERI, DISTRICT- NALANDA 7. ANITA KUMARI WIFE OF BIRESH PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA-PAHARPURA, P.O & P.S.- BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA 8. DAZY KUMRI RANI, W/O SHRI JAI PRAKASH MEHTA, R/O MOHALLA- PAHARPURA, P.O. & P.S.- BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA 9. PRIYANKA RANI, W/O SHAMBHU KUMAR, R/O MOHALLA- MEHARPAR, P.S.- LAHERI, DISTRICT- NALANDA 10.MANJU DEVI W/O MANOJ PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA- MEHARPAR, P.S.- LAHERI, DISTRICT- NALANDA …………….RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ********* For the Appellant :- Mr. Ashok Kumr Singh, Sr, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha SC 14 Mrs. Mohini Kumari AC to SC 14 ***************** 5 10/03/2011 This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated 8.7.2009 by which C.W.J.C. No. 7629 of 2009 was dismissed. The grievance of the appellant is regarding the improper acceptance of nomination papers which was 2 agitated by the appellants by filing Election Petition No. 1 of 2007 before the Sub-Judge II, Biharsharif at Nalanda. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the respondents are the voters at two places and hence, their nomination papers cannot be accepted in view of the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission. It is further contended that the State Election Commission has issued a general notice in Daily Newspaper ‘Hindustan’ with regard to who shall be a voter for the purpose of election of Nagar Parishad. After having gone through the orders passed by the Election Tribunal in election petition, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there is no rule prescribing the rejection of the nomination papers of a candidate on the ground that the candidate was a voter at two places. The same argument was agitated before us by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. We have also gone through the Acts and the Rules and find that there is no Rule indicating that nomination papers of a candidate contesting election is improper in view of the fact that he is voter from two places. We are of the opinion that the order of the Election Tribunal and the order of the Writ Court need 3 no interference in absence of any Rule or any other prescribed statute. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin