IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.669 of 2010 ISLAM ANSARI @ ISLAM, S/O ABBAS ANSARI, VILLAGE - PATHARBADI, BLOCK- JOKIHAT, DISTRICT - ARARIA, BIHAR. … Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA. 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER (PANCHAYAT) CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA DISTRICT ARARIA. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER,ARARIA, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JOKIHAT, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 7. MOHD. NAUSHAD S/O LATE ABDUL HAQ R/O VILLAGE DHANPURA, P.S JOKIHAT,DISTRICT- ARARIA. 8. ALI HASSAN S/O SAHADAT SAH, R/O VILLAGE SISAUNA ,P.O .JOKIHAT,DISTRICT- ARARIA. 9. JABBAR, S/O SAMTUL ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE DHANPURA,P.S JOKIHAT,DISTRICT- ARARIA.. 10. PARVEZ, S/O RAMJAN ALI, R/O VILAGE KAKODHA, P.O BAGH NAGAR, DISTRICT - ARARIA. 11. MOHD. MOHSIN, S/O LATE ABDUL JALIL, R/O VILLAGE - SISAUNA, P.S JOKIHAT,DISTRICT- ARARIA. 12. SHAFEEQ, S/O AKLOO ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE & P.O PATHRA BARI, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 13. RAEESUDDIN, S/O ESHHAQUE HAJJAM, R/O MAHADEWA, P.O - PATHRABARI,P.S JOKIHAT,DISTRICT- ARARIA. 14. BASEEM KHATOON, W/O ESHA NAZEER ANSARI, R/O MAHADEWA, P.O. - PATHRABARI P.S JOKIHAT,DISTRICT- ARARIA. 15. PREM LAL SINGH, S/O KURUP LAL MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE - PANMORA, P.S - PATHRABARI ,DISTRICT- ARARIA. 16. PANNA LAL SINGH, S/O PAHUCH LAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE - BANKORA, P.O. - PATHRABARI ,DISTRICT- ARARIA. … Respondents/Respondents --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Adv. For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-III : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, G.A. 5 2 For the respondents no. 7 to 16 : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Dilip Kumar, Adv. ----------- 3. 11.05.2010 Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned AAG III and Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, learned G. A. 5 for the State and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the intervenor/respondent nos. 7 to 16. In this intra-court appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3232 of 2009. The present appeal has many an interesting facets and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel for the appellant initially made an endeavour to create an imbroglio with regard to the report on which the reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, learned Government Advocate- 5 for the State did not intend to lag behind and he also made an adroit effort to create a maze. The whole thing has effectuated and got accentuated because the manner in which the report has been prepared by the Deputy Development Commissioner. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned AAG-III for the State 3 fairly stated that the report could have been drafted in a better manner. However, he also submitted that if one would go by the face of the report, one may see the skin and lose the essence of soul. In view of the aforesaid deliberation that took place in the appeal wisdom dawned on Mr. Mrigank Mauli and he thought it apt to restrict his prayer to the direction given by the learned Single Judge to initiate a criminal proceeding against the appellant and to impose costs and further barring him for a period of five years from contesting an election. We think it appropriate to reproduce the order passed by the learned single Judge on this score. “….In view of this, I am left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioner must deposit within one month with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna High Court, Patna and file receipt thereof. In view of the fact that the forgeries and manipulations were made, I direct the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Araria to take necessary steps for criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences committed by him and I further order that for corrupt practices used by the petitioner for securing the elected post of Mukhiya, he shall not be permitted to contest for a 4 period of 5 years for any elected post…..” Learned counsel for the parties fairly stated that there has been some kind of misconception by all concerned inasmuch as the resignation was sent to Sub- divisional Officer though it should have been sent to the District Panchayat Raj Officer as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. It is also submitted at the Bar that some where there is a missing link and, therefore, the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant should be accepted. In view of the aforesaid concession given by all concerned, the aforesaid paragraph stands deleted from the order of the learned Single Judge. At this juncture, Mr. Lalit Kishore submitted that as on concession the said paragraph is deleted, all should end well by not to direct continuance of proceeding against the concerned officer as at the grass-root level of democracy certain mistakes do occur either knowingly or unknowingly. Be that as it may, as on concession we have deleted the aforesaid paragraph, we hope and trust that the 5 State Government shall take note of the same and not proceed against any officer. We have said so because the report that was called for is absolutely unclear and in a way confusing. If we allow ourselves to say so one thing alone is clear “there is a report because there was a direction to submit a report”. We say no more on this score. With the aforesaid modification in the order of learned Single Judge, the appeal stands disposed of without any order as to costs. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)