Afrin Rizvi wife of Syed Tasnim Rizvi vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has moved the Court seeking the

following reliefs :

"(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the

nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 6 to produce on record his order dated 13.05.2017, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to reject the nomination filed by the petitioner to contest Municipal Election, 2017 from Ward No. 8 of Phulwarisharif Nagar Parishad and on production the same may be quashed by issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI on the ground that if her Seconder Syed nasim Rizvi is not defaulter and he has cleared all his dues of the Municipality in respect of the holding which he possesses, the Respondent no. 6 was justified to reject the nomination f the petitoenr and that too without disclosing the holding number in respect of which her Seconder was said to be defaulter.

(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent no. 6 to accept the nomination of the petitoenr which he has illegally rejected by the impugned order dated 13.05.2017, to incorporate her name in the list of contesting candidates, to allot a symbol to her and enter her name in the Electronic Voting Machine which he might have allotted to the Presiding Officers of different booths of Ward No. 8. (III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs,order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

The petitioner was a prospective candidate for the

post of Ward Councilor of Ward No. 8 of Phulwarisharif Nagar

Parishad. The proposer in her nomination paper was Syed Tasnim

Rizvi and seconder was Syed Nasim Rizvi. It appears that at the time

of scrutiny somebody raised an objection that No Dues Certificate

given by the seconder was not proper as he was a defaulter for another

holding. Despite there being no written objection, the nomination

paper of the petitioner has been rejected on such ground which is

assailed in the present writ application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that No

Dues Certificate of the petitioner as well as the proposer and seconder

were duly filed with the nomination paper, but at the time of scrutiny,

on oral objection by a stranger, the same has been rejected. Learned

counsel submitted that an objection was raised by the petitioner at that

very point to be made aware of the details regarding the holding for

which the person objecting had made a complaint. Learned counsel

further submitted that no evidence or supporting document or even a

written complaint was filed and only orally somebody had observed

that the seconder was defaulter for holding no. 372 without there

being any ward number or details. Learned counsel has taken a

categorical stand that despite the same being incorrect, it was also too

vague and no records/documents/evidence was ever shown to the

petitioner or even verified from the official records. Learned counsel

submitted that the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner

has to be seen in the context that out of three nomination papers, filed,

two nomination papers, including that of the petitioner has been

rejected by the Returning Officer which is obviously for the purpose

of unduly benefiting the candidate i.e., respondent no. 7.

Learned counsel for the State Election Commission

very fairly submitted that if the matter is still open, in the sense that

respondent no. 7 has not been declared elected, the State Election

Commission is ready to look into the matter.

In view thereof, the writ application stands disposed

off with a direction to the respondents no. 3 and 4 to verify from the

official records with regard to the claim of the petitioner that her

nomination paper has wrongly been rejected on the ground that the

seconder was in default with regard to due municipal tax of his

holding. It would be verified from the records of the Phulwarisharif

Nagar Parishad as to whether the holding of which the petitioner''s

seconder is said to be in default is borne out from the official records.

If it transpires that there is no written objection on record or that no

such holding of the seconder is recorded in the official records, the

nomination papers of the petitioner shall accordingly, be directed to

be accepted, for which the State Election Commission shall issue

necessary directions to the authorities concerned, including the

Returning Officer and in the forthcoming Election, she shall

participate as a candidate for Ward No. 8. At this juncture, the Court

called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to inform as to whether

consequences of rejection of nomination papers of all other

prospective candidates excluding respondent no. 7 had taken effect

and whether she has been declared elected and certificate granted,

upon instructions, he submitted that no declaration or grant of

certificate have been made in favour of the respondent no. 7. Learned

counsel has explained the proposition in law also, that since today till

3 p.m is the date for withdrawal of nomination papers, any

consequences shall follow only after that whereas the present order

has been passed today at 12.30 P.M. In view thereof, a direction is

also issued to the Returning Officer not to proceed with regard to the

consequences flowing out of acceptance of the sole nomination papers

of respondent no. 7 till the State Election Commission takes a final

decision in this regard.

Learned counsel for the State as well as State Election

Commission shall communicate the order to the Returning Officer

(Respondent no. 6) with regard to the present order so that he does not

proceed in the matter by taking consequential steps in terms of Rule

51 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007. The petitioner shall

serve a copy, may be a web copy with due attestation by the

petitioner, on respondent no. 4 by 11 a.m tomorrow morning. The

respondents no. 3 and 4 shall thereafter, ensure that the exercise

indicated in this order is completed within two working days

thereafter.