AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State; State
Election Commission and the respondent no. 7.
Basically, the petitioner is aggrieved by non disposal
of Case No. 36 of 2016, filed by him and the respondent no. 8,
against the respondent no. 7, alleging that she does not belong to
Dangi caste on the basis of which she has derived benefit and has
also been elected from the Gurua constituency of Zila Parishad, Gaya
and later on also Chairman of Zila Parishad, Gaya.
The grievance is that despite in the earlier round before
the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19127 of 2016 and C.W.J.C. No. 12160 of
2016, where the Court by order dated 21.06.2017, had also directed
to dispose off the writ petition with liberty to the respondent no. 7 to
approach the Caste Scrutiny Committee with regard to getting a
declaration relating to her caste observing that in case there is a
favourable decision in her favour, she will have liberty to approach
the State Election Commission for reconsideration, if so required.
Further, the Court had specifically vacated the interim order dated
22.02.2017, which had restrained the State Election Commission
from passing final order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order clearly required the State Election Commission to proceed with
passing final order with regard to which it had been restrained, which
would be clear from the Court recording that if the respondent no. 7
got a favourable decision in her favour from the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, she shall be at liberty to approach the State Election
Commission for reconsideration. He submitted that reconsideration
clearly implies that a decision is already taken which needs fresh
consideration i.e., reconsideration. It was submitted that in the
present case, no effective hearing is taking place and the case is fixed
from date to date, which, in fact, is in violation of the import and
substance of the order dated 21.06.2017.
Learned counsel for the State Election Commission,
without going into the merits, at the very outset, submitted that he
was giving a categorical undertaking to the Court that Case No. 36 of
2016, shall be heard and final orders shall be passed within one
month from today.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 submitted
that in view of certain developments during the interregnum period
with regard to which he has also approached the appropriate
forum/Court, his interest may be prejudiced if the proceeding
instituted by him are not heard. He therefore prays that the State
Election Commission may not hurriedly pass an order.
Having considered the matter, especially in view of the
direction given by this Court in its earlier order dated 21.06.2017 in
C.W.J.C. No. 19127 of 2016 and analogous case and also keeping in
mind the categorical undertaking given by learned counsel appearing
for the State Election Commission, despite the Court not being
pleased with the matter having been kept pending, directs that the
case be disposed off by passing final orders expeditiously and latest
within five weeks from today.
The parties are agreeable that all developments, which
take place till the last date of hearing, if brought before the State
Election Commission by the parties, shall be taken into
consideration while passing final order.
The writ petition stands disposed off in the
aforementioned terms.