Rajnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6205 of 2016 ====================================================== Rajnish Kumar, S/o Arjun Singh, resident of Village- Bersima, P.S.- Alipur, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Magadh Division, Gaya.

4. The District Magistrate, Gaya -cum- District Election Officer (PACS).

5. District Cooperative Officer, Gaya cum Deputy District Election Officer.

6. Block Development Officer, Tekari cum Election Officer (PACS).

7. Rupaspur Primary Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. (in Short PACS), Prakhand -Tekari, District- Gaya.

8. Bihar State Election Authority, through its Chief Election Officer, Patna.

9. Subhas Kumar @ Subhas Kumar Singh, S/o Bidya Nand Singh, resident of Village- Rupaspur, P.S.- Alipur, District- Gaya.

10. Manish Kumar, S/o Mithilesh Sharma, resident of Village- Salipur, P.S.- Alipur, district- Gaya.

11. Jairam Sharma, S/o Prasidh Sharma, resident of Village- Salempur, P.S.- Alipur, District- Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnish Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.S. Barnwal, GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 06-04-2016 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.2015/21.7.2015 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya in Election Case No.42 of 2014-15 whereby the election petition has been dismissed. The sole issue raised by the petitioner is that the returned Chairman i.e. the respondent no.9 was a paid employee

Patna High Court CWJC No.6205 of 2016 (2) dt.06-04-2016 of the cooperative society.

Mr. Marvind, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the resignation submitted by the respondent no.9 was not acted upon by the society until the date of filing of nomination and thus he was disqualified from contesting the election Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that there is no dispute that the private respondent did resign before filing his nomination and thus even if the same was not acted upon by the Society as canvassed by learned counsel but such act of the society cannot prejudice the right of the private respondent. Besides, the writ petition also suffers from vice of gross laches and delay.

No case for indulgence is made out.

For the reasons aforementioned the writ petition is dismissed.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U