Vijay Kumar Verma vs State of Bihar and Others

Aftab Alam, J.—The Petitioner makes a grievance that his nomination for contesting election for the post of Mukhiya for Bihar Shariff (East) Zila Parishad was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer on the unfounded ground that his name was not appearing in the electoral list. According to the Petitioner the reason assigned for rejecting his nomination was completely false and baseless. It is stated on behalf of the Petitioner that in the electoral list, at serial No. 435 in Column 2, his name was initially shown as Binay Kumar which was later corrected and his correct name Vijay Kumar Verma was shown in the supplementary list, a copy whereof is at Annexure 2.

It is further stated that when this matter was brought to the notice of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, he found and held that the Returning Officer had acted arbitrarily in rejecting the Petitioner''s nomination and accordingly debarred him from election duty and also reported this matter to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. The State Election Commission, however, could not restore the Petitioner''s nomination as there was no such provision under the Act and the Rules.

Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission accepts the statements made on behalf of the Petitioner as correct.

At this stage Mr. A.A.G. III intervened to say that there being no provision in the Act for restoration of a nomination rejected by the Returning Officer, this writ court might not exercise its jurisdiction and the only remedy available to the Petitioner will be to challenge the election after it is held u/s 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. What is contended by A.A.G. III may normally be correct but the writ court may also look into the grounds for rejecting; the nomination paper. For example, if the Returning Officer rejected a nomination paper on the ground that the prospective candidate belonged to a particular religion or caste, the reason assigned would be so unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional that the writ court may step into to rectify the injury sought to be done to the concerned person without making him to wait for the election to be over so as to challenge-the result by way of an election petition.

In this case it is noted that though the Petitioner''s name appeared in the electoral list in black and white, the Returning Officer insisted that he was not eligible to contest the election because his name was not in the electoral list. It also cannot be lost sight of that on the complaint made by the Petitioner the State Election Commission found substance in his allegations so-much-so that the concerned officer was debarred from discharging his duties as Returning Officer.

In these facts and circumstances I am satisfied that a case is made out for an, interference by this Court in this matter.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Returning Officer to re-verify the fact and in case it is found that the name of the Petitioner finds place in the electoral list and his nomination paper was rejected on a nonest ground to restore his nomination paper within 48 hours from the receipt/production of a copy of this order.