Swarnlata Verma vs State Election Commission And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The present petition has been filed "for quashing the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist, Gaya in Election Petition No. 01 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the petition dated 13.07.2017 filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC." 3. The respondent no. 11/petitioner is the returned candidate of the Ward Councillor election of the Gaya Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 11/petitioner submits that the learned Court below ought to have dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioners/respondent (1st set) which did not disclose any cause of action in terms of Rule 104 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the election petition read as a whole did not disclose any corrupt or illegal practice on the part of the respondent no. 11/petitioner and as such the election petition was not maintainable which ought to have been rejected as prayed for under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that throughout the election petition the only allegation is against the husband of the respondent no. 11/petitioner and not against the respondent no. 11/petitioner of having assisted the Block Level Officer in preparing voters list in which the names of the voters of ward no. 1 were included in ward nos. 2, 3 and 27. It is submitted that function of the preparation of the voters list lay with Government officials and the respondent no. 11/petitioner had no concern with the same.

Having heard learned counsel for the respondent no. 11/petitioner and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. From a perusal of the election petition as well as the impugned order, it transpires that the voters of ward no. 1 have allegedly been included in ward nos. 2, 3 and 27 at the behest of the respondent no. 11/petitioner's husband. There is specific averment in para 13 of the election petition with regard to corrupt practice adopted in preparation and publication of voters list. The learned Court below has observed that the averment in the election petition alone are to be looked into and not the defence version for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which cannot be considered at this stage in order to ascertain whether or not any cause of action arose with regard to maintainability of the election petition and which can be decided upon taking evidence.

This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the view expressed by the learned Court below. It is well settled that this Court does not sit in appeal over the impugned order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope whereof is primarily only to ensure that the learned Court below acts within the bounds of its authority. No jurisdictional error in the impugned order has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent no. 11/petitioner. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.