Madden Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.9226 of 2016 (3) dt.20-06-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9226 of 2016 ====================================================== Madden Prasad, Son of Late Raghubir Sah, resident of village + P.O. Kesath, Police Station- Nawanagar, District - Buxar . .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.

4. The Block Development Officer -cum- Returning Officer, Kesath Block, District - Buxar.

5. The Chief Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Bihar , Patna.

6. Manju Devi, Wife of Kamlesh Kumar Gupta.

7. Asalam Hussain, Son of Ahmed Hussain.

8.

Ujjawal Kumar, Son of Late Vivekanand Singh.

9. Tuhin Yadav, Son of Late Sheojee Yadav.

10. Narendra Kumar, Son of Motichand Singh.

11. Rameshwar Dubey, Son of Late Shivdhari Dubey.

12. Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Jagarnath Dubey.

13. Hemant Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Rangjee Singh. 6 to 13 are residents of village + P.O. Kesath, Police StationNawanagar, District - Buxar.

14. Pappu Singh, Son of Lalan Singh.

15. Bikrama Singh, Son of Baliram Singh.

14 and 15 are residents of village - Dhamua Tola, P.O. Kesath, Police Station- Nawanagar, District - Buxar.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra For the Respondent-State : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-6 For the Respondent-SEC : Mr. Amit Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 20-06-2016 Heard the parties.

In the nature of the dispute raised, the remedy for the petitioner would lie under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 framed thereunder to question the election of the private respondent no.6. The petitioner if so advised can take recourse to the same.

No cause for interference is made out. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U