Nazrana Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6201 of 2016 ====================================================== Nazrana Khatoon, wife of Mahtab Alam, resident of Village - Bedi Bhandsar, P.S. - Bhawanipur, District - Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Election Commission, State of Bihar, Patna through its Secretary.

3. State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Collector, Purnea.

5. District Panchayati Raj Officer, Purnea.

6. Block Election Officer, Bhawanipur, District Purnea.

7. Block Development Officer, Bhawanipur, District - Purnea.

8. Election Commission of India, New Delhi, through its Secretary .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh For the Respondent-State : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA-3 For the Respondent-SEC : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh For Election Commission of India: Mr. Siddhartha Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 25-04-2016 Heard Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the State Election Commission and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India.

The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for adding her name in the voter list of 60, Rupauli Assembly Constituency in the district of Purnea. A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India and with reference to the order-sheet annexed at Annexure-A

Patna High Court CWJC No.6201 of 2016 (4) dt.25-04-2016 series he submits that for the purpose of addition of name of the petitioner along with some others a proceeding was initiated in which they were asked to appear before the Electoral Registration Officer -cum- Block Development Officer but the petitioner has failed to comply the same and as a result the proceeding was dropped. It is stated by Mr. Prasad that should the petitioner file a fresh application it would be acted upon. In view of the submission made no cause for indulgence is made out and the liberty is open for the petitioner for the needful exercise.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U