Pradip Kumar Byahut vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and State

Election Commission.

Learned counsel for the State seeks permission to correct

the date shown by the deponent in the affidavit which, according to

him, inadvertently has been mentioned as 26.04.2017, though the

same has been affirmed today i.e., 27.04.2017. The deponent himself

has also tendered apology.

In view thereof, learned counsel for the State is permitted

to correct the date shown by the deponent as 26.04.2017. Let the same

be done during the course of the day.

The petitioners have moved the Court being aggrieved

by non-consideration of their objections with regard to demarcation of

boundary of Ward No. 17 of the upgraded Chapra Nagar Nigam.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in

terms of draft publication, they had made objection relating to

demarcation of boundary, area and class of population of Ward No. 17

but the final notification dated 20.03.2017 did not reflect the correct

position and thus, his representation remained unconsidered.

Learned counsel for the State Election Commission has

filed counter affidavit and submitted that they are in agreement with

the petitioners on the issue that the exercise, as was required to be

undertaken by the district officials for constituting the Wards in terms

of Letter No. 6648 dated 21.09.2016 of the State Election

Commission, has not been correctly complied with and thus, the State

Election Commission has directed the District Magistrate-cum-

District Election Officer, Saran to make constitution of Wards in

terms of the said directive. He drew the attention of the Court to the

categorical statement made in paragraph no. 9 of his counter affidavit

which reads as under:

"9. That it is stated and submitted that since Ward No. 17 of Chapra Nagar Nigam has not been constituted in terms of Annexure-R/1 to the Counter Affidavit and fresh exercise is going on for Constitution of Ward of Chapra Nagar Nigam including Ward no. 17/Chapra Nagar Nigam and as such either the representation/application filed by the Petitioner as contained in Annexure-7 is pre-mature and hence it has been not considered by the State Election Commission." (emphasis supplied)

Learned counsel for the State has also filed counter

affidavit, which is of no help in the present proceeding as only a

justification of what has already happened has been stated. It is

unfortunate that the final repository of power being the State Election

Commission, once it has taken a categorical stand, on oath in the

affidavit filed on its behalf in the present proceeding, that the exercise

required was not in terms of its direction, the stand taken by the

respondents no. 4, 5, and 6 justifying such exercise cannot be

appreciated.

Be that as it may, as the State Election Commission has

to take a final call on such delimitation, in view of what has been

stated on oath on its behalf in its counter affidavit, as quoted

hereinabove, the writ petition stands disposed off with the observation

that the State Election Commission while finally taking a call on such

delimitation shall take due care in ensuring that the exercise has been

completed in accordance with law, including its directions.

To facilitate the matter, let the petitioners serve a copy of

this order on the respondent no. 4, latest by day after tomorrow, and

the respondent no. 4 shall thereafter carry out the exercise as directed

by the State Election Commission and while doing so, especially with

Ward No. 17, shall also take into consideration the objection filed by

the petitioner no. 2, copy of which is at Annexure 4 to the writ

application.