Case Background
The case concerns the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Bharsara under Dinara Block in Rohtas district, Bihar.
In the 2021 Panchayat elections conducted by the State Election Commission, Bihar, the writ petitioner and respondents 4 to 11 contested for the Mukhiya’s post. After polling, the writ petitioner was declared elected Mukhiya.
According to the election result, the petitioner secured 1472 valid votes. Respondent no.4, the election petitioner before the Tribunal, secured 1426 valid votes and thus stood second. The margin between them was only 46 votes.
After the declaration of result, respondent no.4 filed Election Petition No. 05 of 2021 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bikramganj, Rohtas. She challenged the election of the returned candidate (the present writ petitioner) on the ground that the latter had suppressed or failed to disclose several mandatory details in the affidavit attached to her nomination paper, in violation of Section 125A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
The Election Tribunal, by judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, allowed the election petition. It set aside the election of the writ petitioner as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Bharsara and declared respondent no.4 (the election petitioner) as the duly elected Mukhiya.
Aggrieved, the returned candidate approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15168 of 2023, challenging the Tribunal’s order.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petitioner asked the Patna High Court for three main reliefs. First, to quash the Election Tribunal’s judgment dated 29.08.2023. Second, to declare that under Section 140(1)(a) and (b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, an election petitioner can be declared elected only if the Tribunal records a clear finding that he or she actually received the majority of valid votes, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to declare respondent no.4 elected. Third, for any other appropriate direction.
The writ petitioner’s case was built on three broad points. One, she claimed that she was never properly served with notice of the election petition and that the Tribunal wrongly proceeded ex parte against her. She even alleged that if any written statement appears on the record in her name, it was filed fraudulently by “someone”. Two, she alleged that the Tribunal did not frame issues and therefore the trial of the election petition was not in accordance with law. Three, she argued that even if her election was to be held void, the Tribunal had no power to declare respondent no.4 elected Mukhiya in the absence of any recorded finding that respondent no.4 had obtained a majority of valid votes.
On the legal side, she relied on Sections 139 and 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Section 139 sets out the grounds on which the election of a returned candidate can be declared void, including when the result is “materially affected” by improper acceptance of a nomination or non-compliance with the Act, rules or orders. Section 140 provides the circumstances in which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared elected, namely when the Tribunal is of the opinion that such candidate has in fact received a majority of valid votes, or would have done so but for corrupt votes obtained by the returned candidate.
The petitioner argued that respondent no.4 had not pleaded that the improper acceptance of the nomination paper had materially affected the result, nor had she led evidence on that point. According to her, without a specific finding on majority of valid votes in favour of respondent no.4, the Tribunal could not have declared her elected. She urged that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 140.
In support, she cited decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, to emphasise that election law is strictly statutory, that non-compliance must materially affect the result, and that election petitions are serious matters.
Respondent no.4, on the other hand, defended the Tribunal’s judgment. She pointed out that the margin of defeat was only 46 votes. She asserted that the writ petitioner’s nomination form and affidavit were incomplete: important columns regarding assets, liabilities, cash in hand, bank balances, movable properties like vehicles and ornaments, loans from banks and financial institutions, and educational qualifications were left blank or concealed. This was projected as a clear violation of Section 125A of the Act and the Election Commission’s disclosure requirements, depriving voters of essential information about the candidate.
On the service of notice, respondent no.4 filed a counter affidavit stating specific facts. First, after the election petition was admitted on 01.02.2022, summons were issued through ordinary process. For the writ petitioner, the process server reported that she was not found in the house and so the notice was hung on the door of her house on 21.02.2022. Second, on 08.03.2022, the Tribunal directed service through registered post. According to the postal report, the writ petitioner refused to accept the registered notice. Third, in these circumstances, on 18.04.2022 the Tribunal ordered substituted service by newspaper publication. Accordingly, notice was published in the Hindi daily “Hindustan” on 21.04.2022.
The High Court noted that these averments in paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit were never specifically denied by the writ petitioner. The counter affidavit had been served on her counsel on 12.12.2023, yet no rejoinder was filed contradicting these statements. The Court also observed that in the writ petition the petitioner had not stated whether she had or had not seen the newspaper publication, nor given any explanation for not appearing even after that publication.
On this basis, the Court held that the Tribunal had exhausted all reasonable modes of service: ordinary summons (affixed on the door), registered post (refused by the petitioner), and newspaper publication. The Court concluded that the petitioner deliberately chose not to appear and contest the election petition, apparently to delay the proceedings. Her plea of lack of knowledge was therefore rejected. The allegation that some unidentified person had filed a false written statement on her behalf was also rejected, as she had taken no steps to complain or seek action against any such person.
With respect to the framing of issues, the High Court examined the order of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2022. It recorded that three issues were framed: (i) whether the election petition was maintainable; (ii) whether the election of Manju Devi (the writ petitioner) should be declared void; and (iii) whether election petitioner Ekta Devi (respondent no.4) should be declared duly elected Mukhiya. The High Court found that these issues adequately covered the dispute. The contention that no issues were framed was therefore rejected.
On the core question of non-disclosure of information, the High Court noted that respondent no.4 had produced both oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal. This evidence showed that the writ petitioner had deliberately suppressed material facts in the nomination form and affidavit and that, had these been disclosed, voters would have had a full picture of the candidate’s financial and personal background. The Court emphasised that the margin between the two main candidates was only 46 votes, and that such suppression deprived voters of vital information that could have influenced their choice.
The Court held that the non-disclosure of mandatory information materially affected the candidature of the writ petitioner and, by extension, the result of the election. It upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the acceptance of the petitioner’s nomination paper by the Returning Officer was void ab initio because of this serious non-compliance.
On the petitioner’s argument that the Tribunal could not declare respondent no.4 elected, the High Court referred to Section 140 of the Act and to the actual relief clause in the election petition. The election petitioner had specifically prayed that the election of the returned candidate be declared void and that she herself be declared duly elected Mukhiya. The Court also noted the admitted fact that, in terms of valid votes, respondent no.4 was the next candidate with the second highest votes.
Given that the returned candidate’s nomination was invalid from the beginning due to non-disclosure, the Court held that once her election was declared void ab initio, the Tribunal was justified in declaring respondent no.4 as the winning candidate. The Court accepted the argument that, had the invalid nomination been rejected at the scrutiny stage, respondent no.4 would have been the winner on the existing vote count. The absence of an explicit sentence in the Tribunal’s order that the election was “materially affected” was treated as a technicality that could not defeat a reasoned order where facts were fully discussed.
As to the Supreme Court decisions cited by the writ petitioner, the High Court found that they did not help her. It held that the judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms, which emphasises mandatory disclosure of criminal background, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications, in fact went against the petitioner because she had withheld such information. The Court distinguished Mangani Lal Mandal by observing that in the present case the election petitioner had successfully demonstrated, through facts and the narrow margin, that non-disclosure had materially affected the election. The decisions in Jyoti Basu and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi were also found not to assist the petitioner since her own conduct showed she had not treated the election petition seriously.
In the end, the High Court concluded that all key issues—service of notice, framing of issues, impact of non-disclosure, and the power to declare the next candidate elected—stood decided against the writ petitioner. It characterised the writ petition as a frivolous attempt to disturb a well-reasoned order of the Election Tribunal.
Accordingly, by judgment dated 20.08.2024, the Patna High Court dismissed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15168 of 2023 and affirmed the Tribunal’s order dated 29.08.2023 in Election Petition No.05 of 2021.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for local body elections across Bihar, especially for candidates contesting for Mukhiya and other Panchayat posts.
First, it underlines that filling the nomination form and affidavit honestly and completely is not a formality. Non-disclosure of assets, liabilities or other prescribed information can lead to the election being treated as void from the beginning.
Second, it shows that courts will look at the real impact of such non-disclosure on voters, particularly where the margin of victory is narrow. If voters are kept in the dark about important facts, the result can be set aside.
Third, the judgment makes it clear that avoiding or refusing court notices will not help a returned candidate. If the Tribunal uses all normal modes of service and even publishes notice in a newspaper, a candidate who still remains absent cannot later claim ignorance.
Finally, it confirms that where the winning candidate’s nomination is invalid, and the next candidate has secured the second highest votes, the Tribunal can declare that second candidate elected, if the statutory conditions are met. This avoids unnecessary re-election and protects the will of voters who cast valid votes.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Was the writ petitioner denied proper notice of the election petition so that the ex parte hearing was illegal?
Answer: No. The Court held that notices were served by ordinary process, by registered post (refused by the petitioner) and by newspaper publication. The petitioner did not rebut these facts, so the ex parte proceeding was valid. - Issue: Did non-disclosure of mandatory information in the nomination form and affidavit materially affect the election result and justify setting aside the petitioner’s election under Section 139?
Answer: Yes. The Court found that important information about assets, liabilities and other details was concealed, depriving voters of vital knowledge. Given the narrow 46-vote margin, this materially affected the election, making acceptance of the nomination void ab initio. - Issue: After declaring the petitioner’s election void, could the Tribunal lawfully declare respondent no.4 as the duly elected Mukhiya under Section 140?
Answer: Yes. Respondent no.4 had specifically sought such relief and had secured the second highest votes. Once the petitioner’s nomination was held invalid from the start, the Tribunal was justified in declaring respondent no.4 elected.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr, (2002) 5 SCC 295
- Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, (2012) 3 SCC 314
- Jyoti Basu v. Devi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983
- Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3411-12 of 2023
- Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2018 (2) PLJR (Patna High Court)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15168 of 2023
Case Title: Manju Devi v. The State Election Commission (Panchayat) & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 20.08.2024
Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 in Election Petition No.05 of 2021 by Election Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bikramganj, Rohtas
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 1
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate; Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7
- For the State Election Commission (SEC): Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate
- For Respondent No.4: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Surendra Kumar Choubey, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Election Tribunal in a Panchayat election petition.
Link to Full Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No.15168 of 2023
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
