IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9058 of 2011 AMOD KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS . Versus THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. ----------- 2. 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State Election Commission. The petitioners are stated to be the voters of Gram Panchayat Raj, Singhara (South) aggrieved by the failure to hold polls at booth nos. 230, 231 and 232 located at Primary School, Bharatpur at which they were voters. It is an incontrovertible fact between the parties that disturbances did take place at the booth prior to the commencement of the poll when ballot papers to be utilized were damaged and protests. The controversy now is with regard to the stand of the petitioner that there was no boycott of the poll thereafter by the voters enmasse and the stand of the State Election Commission based on a report dated 19.5.2011 that the poll station remained open through the polling hours but nobody came to vote. The petitioners deny the same based on an earlier report of the District Election Officer dated 25.4.2011 which has also been perused by the Court but does not appear conclusive. 2 Whether it is a re-poll by reason of any untoward incident that may take place during the poll vitiating the sanctity of the polling or whether no votes were polled at all are both matters amenable to Rule 71 of he Bihar Panchayat Raj Election Rules to be exercised by the Commission in its subjective satisfaction of the requirements of the same having been fulfilled. There can be no two opinions that Rule 71 talks of an ‘obstructed’ poll or ‘any other sufficient cause’. If the polling process did not commence at all, it can be said to have been obstructed and in any event shall come within the wider definition of the word ‘sufficient cause’. The Court therefore expects the Commission to act in the true spirit of Rule 71 so that the right to franchise is not rendered illusory but of course subject to the subjective satisfaction of the Commission for the existence of the conditions to exercise its statutory powers. The writ application is disposed with the aforesaid observation. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)