Shiv Kumar Upadhyay v. The State Election Commission Panchayat And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9655 of 2016 ====================================================== Shiv Kumar Upadhyay, son of Late Jagarnath Upadhyay, Resident of Village- Shivrajpur, P.O.- Khajuri, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner. 2.

The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3.

The Secretary, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.

4.

The District Election Officer (Panchayat), Gopalganj, DistrictGopalganj. 5.

The Block Development Officer, Kuchaikote-cum-Returning Officer (Panchayat Election), Kuchaikote Block, District- Gopalganj. 6.

Rameshwar Yadav, son of Sri Lal Babu Yadav, Resident of VillageMateya Tola, P.O. Mateya Khas, P.S.- Kuchaikote, DistrictGopalganj. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar -Manglam For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Shrivastava Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 28-06-2016 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the State Election Commission.

The petitioner complains that the ballot boxes relatable to booth nos.313 to 318 for the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mateya Khas in the district of Siwan were soiled as water had seeped inside the ballot boxes and were not in a position for counting. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such position, the Returning Officer proceeded

Patna High Court CWJC No.9655 of 2016 (2) dt.28-06-2016 with the counting and declared the result.

While raising such grievance it is also admitted by Mr. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, that an election dispute has also been raised before the Election Tribunal by the petitioner.

In the circumstance discussed, no cause for indulgence is made out and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) deepika/- U