Tribunal Erred In Declaring Runner Up Elected | Patna HC Restores Mukhiya | Amendment Beyond Limitation Barred Under Panchayat Raj Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma has set aside the judgment passed by the Munsif-cum-Election Tribunal, Jamui, which had invalidated the election of a returned candidate for the post of Mukhiya and declared the runner-up candidate as elected. The High Court held that the election petition filed against the petitioner was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and corresponding rules. The Court found that the Election Tribunal erred in accepting amendments beyond the prescribed limitation period and in declaring the runner-up as elected without proper adjudication of corrupt practices or compliance with Section 140 of the Act.
The Court allowed the writ petition and restored the petitioner to her position as the duly elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Khadaich, Jamui. It further held that there was no basis in the pleadings or evidence for the Election Tribunal’s conclusions regarding corrupt practices or material effect on the election result. The Court declared that the impugned election petition should have been rejected at its inception for non-joinder of necessary parties and absence of essential pleadings.
The writ petition was filed seeking to quash the judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Munsif-cum-Election Tribunal, Civil Court, Jamui in Election Case No. 07 of 2021. The Tribunal had set aside the petitioner’s election to the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Khadaich, and declared Respondent No. 1 as elected.
The petitioner had contested the Panchayat elections for Jamui District held on 24.11.2021. The results were declared on 26.11.2021. According to the petitioner, her nomination was scrutinised in accordance with the law, and no objections were raised during that stage. She received the highest number of votes and was declared elected.
Respondent No. 1, having lost the election, filed an election petition on 24.12.2021 under Sections 137 and 139 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The grounds for challenge included non-disclosure of a pending criminal complaint under Sections 448, 427, 379, and 34 of the IPC, alleged concealment of agricultural land, understatement of the number of rooms in her house, and failure to disclose vehicle ownership in the affidavit filed with the nomination papers under Section 125(a)(i) of the Act.
The petitioner argued that such amendments to the election petition, including the addition of new respondents and new reliefs, were introduced beyond the statutory limitation of 30 days provided under Rule 106(1) and Section 137(1) of the Act. Initially, the petition did not implead all contesting candidates or include a prayer to declare the respondent elected. These were added via an amendment dated 07.01.2022, after the limitation period had expired.
Relying on the decision in Neelam Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2008 (3) PLJR 187], the petitioner submitted that the statute mandates inclusion of all contesting candidates if the relief includes declaring another person elected. The Court in that case had held: “The very institution of the Election Petition...was not in consonance with the statutory requirements...and should have been thrown out at the inception itself.”
Additional reliance was placed on Kameshwar Singh vs. Surya Narayan Rai & Ors. [2009 (4) PLJR 722] and Roji Kumari vs. Julekha Khatoon [2009 (2) PLJR 614], reaffirming that amendments beyond limitation and failure to implead necessary parties make the petition non-maintainable.
The petitioner also argued that the Tribunal erroneously based its conclusion on allegations of corrupt practices without any such pleadings. It was contended that the allegations in the petition pertained solely to omissions in the affidavit and did not meet the statutory criteria of corrupt practices under Section 141 of the Act.
Citing Karim Uddin Bharbuiya vs. Animul Haque Laskar [AIR 2024 SC 2194], it was submitted that “mere bold and vague allegation without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of requirement of making a concise pleading.”
The respondent contended that the election petition was filed within the limitation period, since the election was declared on 26.11.2021 and filed on 24.12.2021. The respondent justified the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and claimed that the concealment of facts regarding income, landholding, and a criminal case constituted a valid ground under Section 125(a) and Rule 39(f).
The Election Commission submitted that its role was limited to conducting elections and issuing certificates. It asserted that the Tribunal’s declaration of the respondent as elected was not supported by statutory conditions under Section 140, which require proof that the candidate received the maximum number of valid votes or that the returned candidate secured victory solely through corrupt practices.
The Court observed: “The Election Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the basis of the second part of Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and interfered with the election of the returned candidate on the ground of concealment of criminal cases.”
It further stated: “The valid votes received by the candidate whose election has been set aside cannot be thrown out on this ground.”
The Court noted that corrupt practices under Section 141 of the Act include specific acts such as bribery, undue influence, religious appeal, and other defined offenses. The alleged non-disclosure of a pending complaint and certain assets did not qualify under these provisions.
The Court quoted from the Neelam Kumari judgment: “The very institution of the Election Petition...was not in consonance with the statutory requirements of Section 137(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 106(2) ...and should have been thrown out at the inception itself.”
It added: “The question of non-impleadment of necessary parties...becomes a question of jurisdiction. Non-compliance renders the suit without jurisdiction.”
The Court held that in the absence of pleadings and framed issues concerning corrupt practices, any finding by the Tribunal in that regard was legally unsustainable.
The Court noted: “Apparently any defect in an affidavit as referred to under Section 125(a) is not enumerated as a corrupt practice under Section 141 of the Act.”
Further, citing Mangni Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari [AIR 2012 SC 1094], the Court stated: “In the absence of pleading as to how the result is materially affected...the election of the returned candidate cannot be interfered.”
It added: “The declaration of another candidate as returned candidate cannot be done casually...but only by the Tribunal as per stipulation of Section 140.”
The Court rejected the Tribunal’s approach, noting that the declaration of the respondent as elected Mukhiya was made without proper finding that she received the maximum number of valid votes.
The Court directed: “This Court, therefore, holds that the Election Case No. 7 of 2021 before the Court of learned Munsif, Jamui was not in consonance with the statutory requirements of Section 137(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.”
It further ordered: “The judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in Election Case No. 7 of 2021 rendered by the learned Munsif, Jamui (Annexure -P/1) is accordingly set aside and the present writ application stands allowed.”
The Court concluded: “The petitioner thereby stand restored to her position as the winning candidate in whose favour the statutory winning declaration was issued.”
No costs were imposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate; Standing Counsel
Case Title: Pushpa Devi vs. Samri Devi & Others
Case Number: CWJC No. 17488 of 2024
Bench: Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
