IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14139 of 2009 1. BACCHA RAM S/O LATE DAYALI RAM VILL- KACHNAR, P.O. KACHNAR, P.S. RIVILGANJ, DISTT. CHAPRA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHAPRA 3. THE MANAGER CHAPRA DISTRICT CENTRAL BANK LTD., CHAPRA 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-ELECTION OFFICER REVELGANJ, CHAPRA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Raghwendra Kumar For Election Authority: Mr. M.K.Thakur For the State : G.P. 15 For respondent no.6 : Mr. Vijay Kumar 6 31.3.2010 This case is illustrative of extreme fraud being perpetuated by the authority concerned with the election and even on such finding being arrived, which is not disputed, Court is told not to interfere and shut its eyes to such illegality leaving it to the parties to fight a decade long litigation permitting a wrongly elected person to continue in the mean time. It is under those exceptional circumstances, this Court is interfering in this matter. When this matter was taken up for admission earlier, petitioner was permitted to add State Election Authority as respondent no.5 and the declared uncontested winning candidate as respondent no.6. The main culprit of the game was respondent no.3, Manager, Chapra District Central Bank Limited, Chapra , who had been noticed. Notices have been validly served. He was noticed as to why punitive action was not recommended against him. He has 2 chosen to ignore it. Counter affidavits have been field by respondent no.5, the State Election Authority and the respondent no.6, the candidate , who was won by default. Parties have been heard and with their consents, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. For election to the post of Chairman of Kachnar PACS , Revilganj, Chapra, nomination papers were filed on 6.10. 2009. Scrutiny thereof was to be done on 8.10.2009. Petitioner being an eligible member for the post of Chairman of the said PACS obtained a “No Due Certificate” on 29.9.2009 from Manager, Chapra District Central Bank Limited, Chapra for being filed along with his nomination paper. On 6.10.2009 on the strength of “No Due Certificate”, so granted, he filed his nomination paper. On 8.10.2009 when nomination papers were being scrutinized , respondent no.3, Manager, Chapra District Central Bank limited, Chapra sent letter no. 1922, dated 8.10.2009 to the Election Officer directly pointing out that by mistake he had issued “No Due Certificate” on 29.9.209 in favour of the petitioner. In fact, there was Rs.78/- dues from the petitioner remaining unpaid, as such “No Due Certificate” should not be accepted. Petitioner immediately agreed to deposit the same as it was a paltry amount provided that had he been told this amount earlier he would have immediately deposited the same but the same was not accepted . Consequent whereof was that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected and respondent no.6 won by default on 3 wrongly exclusion of the petitioner though by contest. This is not the first case of its kind that has come up before this Court, which fact is noted in order dated 10.11.2009 of this Court. This wrongly modus operandi to eliminate the candidate has been adopted in several other cases and it is because of this that Court has decided to interfere in interest of justice as Court cannot be mute spectator to the fraud being perpetuated . The facts, noted above, are not disputed rather even the State Election Authority admits the facts aforesaid. The State Election Authority has now stated that looking into this wrong practice , detailed instructions have been issued by the Election Authority under letter no. 519, dated 18.3.2010 to all concerned, which has been annexed as Annexure A to their counter affidavit. It is indeed commendable that the election authority has arisen to the occasion but the most vital issue is left untouched. There is no instruction that once “No Due Certificate’ is duly granted, it cannot be cancelled and/or withdrawn. Learned counsel for the Authority submits that necessary amends would be made immediately in this regard. On behalf of respondent no.6, who has won by default, it is submitted that he has committed no mistake. The mistake was committed by respondent no.3 or the Election Officer or the said Election Authority in not issuing such circulars earlier for which he cannot suffer. I am afraid , I cannot accept this submission. The submission is clearly that I have won because of 4 some one mistakes and as I have committed no mistake, do not interfere with my wrongful winning. To this Court, there cannot be anything grater and defines of rule of law than this situation. The facts, as stated above, clearly shows that how in a planned manner petitioner was eliminated from contesting. Had the petitioner being able even few hours before the letter was sent by respondent no.3, the Manager, Chapra District Central Bank Limited, Chapra directly to the Election Officer that there remains dues of Rs. 78/-, petitioner would have liquidated the same and there would have no occasion to write such a letter, which disqualified the petitioner but that chance was not to be given to the petitioner and therefore the communication was made to the Election Officer at the last moment and no information was given to the petitioner so that he could rectify the situation. “No Due Certificate” having been granted, the Election officer in his turn should not have acted upon the letter of the Manager of the Co-operative Bank because he admits that he had committed a mistake and thus the Election Officer should have directed or permitted the petitioner to pay the amount immediately and proceed with the election . It is for this reason the extreme expression of fraud being perpetuated in a pre decided manner . In that view of the matter, the election of respondent no.6 loses all sanctity in law. It was not free nor it was fair. He cannot be permitted to rip the harvest of seeds of fraud. He must go. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the 5 nomination of petitioner was wrongly and malafide rejected as the consequence whereof respondent no.6 got a wrong advantage, which vitiated the entire election process and the election of respondent no.6. Election of respondent no.6, as the Chairman of PACS is thus set aside and the State Election Authority is directed to take immediately steps for fresh election in accordance with law. Before closing, this Court had already observed about the action to be taken against respondent no.3, the Manager,Chapra District Central Bank Limited, Chapra, this Court directs the Registrar, Bihar Co-operative or whoever may be the competent person to take disciplinary action against respondent no.3 for his negligent act and debar him because of his negligent act and irresponsible behavior being a Manager of any Co-operative Bank at any time in future. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)