Arjun Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2351 of 2016 ====================================================== Arjun Ram, son of Late Mahadeo Ram, resident of Village- Sheo Tola Kataiya, P.S.+ Block- Roh, District- Nawadah. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate -cum- District Election Officer (Panchayat), Nawadah.
3. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nawadah.
4. The Block Development Officer -cum- Block Election Officer, Roh, District- Nawadah.
5. The State Election Commission, Bihar through its Secretary.
6. The Election Commissioner, State Election Officer, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.P. Singh, SC-15 For the Respondent-SEC : Mr. Amit Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 08-02-2016 Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, counsel for the State and Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission are present and have been heard.
Although it is the argument of Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with reference to publication of the list of territorial electoral constituencies under rule 8 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') that the final publication appearing at Annexure-3 is not in consonance with Annexure-1 and for which he refers to the descriptive details of the scheduled caste
Patna High Court CWJC No.2351 of 2016 (2) dt.08-02-2016 population appearing at serial no.6 which according to learned counsel reads far below the population reflecting in Annexure-1, but the submission is not correct for the scheduled caste population in the Panchayat as reflecting in Annexure-1 reads as 4564 and the total population recorded is 14316 which is exactly the situation reflecting from Annexure-3.
In my opinion this writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. No case for indulgence is made out. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U