Prem Nath Mishra vs The State Election Commission and Others

The aspect that the learned Judge declined to interfere in a bunch of writ petitions which were pending consideration before him is not a matter which is connected with the case of the Petitioner.

Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Amar Prakash did not appear. Instead, submissions were made by a lawyer holding his brief, Mr. Jyoti Shankar Mishra Advocate, and he was heard.

In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, no aspect of the judgment aggrieves him. Certain persons connected with the Government or in a fiduciary capacity with it, were restrained from joining the fray to elections to grassroot democracy; in the present case municipal elections. The Petitioner at the time when he filed his nomination papers was holding the position of a Additional Public Prosecutor Government of Bihar. The Petitioner was conscious of the disability, preventing him from contesting elections to municipalities. The issue before the Court is not whether an Additional Public Prosecutor can stand to elections to a Ward of a Municipality or a Nagar Panchayat.

In so far as the Petitioner''s case is concerned, he was in no uncertain terms and beyond reasonable doubt conscious and aware that there is an impediment that if he was holding a post or an assignment connected with the Government, he is in a position of disability. This aspect is on record. The nomination papers were to be filed on or before 8 March, 2002. The Petitioner filed his nomination paper before this date for Ward No. 8. His nomination paper was rejected. This was on 11 March, 2002. The Petitioner was trying (sic) upon the Returning Officer tha(sic) tendered his resignation on that (sic) Returning Officer has recorded "Ink(sic) Sanwiksha ke din (11.3.2002)(sic) abhiyojak pad se tyagpatra san(sic) awedan ki chaya prati di gai har(sic)

At the time when the Petitioner(sic) the nomination papers, the Returning Officer had taken the record as sho(sic) the Petitioner was holding the po(sic) Additional Public Prosecutor, Government of Bihar. Thus, the nomination pa(sic) rejected. If the Petitioner did not de(sic) complication then he should have (sic) that this resignation was prior to the (sic) filing the nomination paper that is (sic) 2002.

In the circumstances, the (sic) does not survive for consideration (sic) Court in the present Letters Patent A(sic)

Dismissed.