Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.36 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, son of Surith Singh, resident of Press Road, at P.O.+ P.S.- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The State Election Authority through its Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad cum District Returning Officer, Aurangabad.

5. The District Co-operative Officer, Aurangabad cum Alternate District Returning Officer, Aurangabad.

6. The Block Development Officer, Madanpur cum Block Returning Officer, Madanpur Block, Aurangabad.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha - PAAG2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to provide the election records/ documents related to the election of Madanpur Vyapar Mandal Co-operative Society, Madanpur, Aurangabad so that he may file election petition as provided under the law.

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner contested the election of Madanpur Vyapar Mandal Co-operative

Patna High Court CWJC No.36 of 2018 (2) dt.12-02-2018 2/2 Society. It is vaguely stated in the writ petition that after election of Vyapar Mandal the petitioner sent requisition for obtaining election records by registered post but the records were not supplied to him. It is not known which document the petitioner intends to obtain. Moreover, filing of requisition through registered post is not a recognized procedure. The petitioner has also not brought on record the copy of requisition sent for obtaining the election record.

In the opinion of this Court, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. The petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy. He may obtain the required documents and information by invoking the provision of The Right to Information Act, 2005.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U