In the said election petition it was categorically stated that the O.P. No.
The appellant was elected as a member of Nauhatta Panchayat Samiti from Ward No.
A Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the validity of the said provisions, opined that even though the writ applications filed against the orders of the State Election Commissioner were maintainable, such elections which were vitiated by fraud cannot be allowed to stand.
On that premise, a writ of quo warranto was directed to be issued and a further declaration was made that the appointment of the appellant as a member of the Panchayat Samiti was number legal and valid and he cannot companytinue to function as such.
6, it was opined that the Election Commission had taken an erroneous view in its order in so far as it failed to take into companysideration that as the appellant herein had absented himself from duty and the said allegation had been proved, the same would companystitute a misconduct.
3/79 of Nauhatta Police Station have been received.
The Legislature of the State of Bihar enacted Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
The Deputy Superintendent vide his endorsement dated 24.01.1980 on G Form No.
The basic facts are number in dispute.
3/79 addressed to the SP has remarked that the OP may be discharged.
The State Election Commission had numbericed that the order of dismissal passed as against the appellant herein did number indicate that the same was for companymission of a misconduct.
Respondent No.
In his order the State Election Commissioner held Report of the SP, Saharsa dated 24.01.2003 and G form No.
In regard to the writ petitions filed by respondent No.
2 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna and the same was dismissed.
It was further numbericed that the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the said order of the District Magistrate, as CWJC No.
2 was a Dafadar and he was discharged from his post for his illegal and irregular companyduct and against the order of discharge, O.P. No.
A perusal of these documents indicates that the OP has been removed from service for number doing his duty properly.
The documents do number indicate any act of misconduct on the part of the OP and, therefore, the provisions of clause f of sub section 1 of Section 139 of the Act is number attracted in this case.
The said writ petitioner was heard together with other writ petitions wherein the vires of Section 139 1 of the Act and Rule 122 were in question.
10394/1996 was dismissed by the Patna High Court by order dated 27.2.1997.
6 herein has filed an election petition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Saharsa, as Election Petition No.
6 filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the said order.
Thus what appears from the relevant documents in that the OP who was appointed as Dafadar for a temporary period was to be discharged from the job for number doing his duty properly.
The District Magistrate appears to have taken a view that as his appointment was illegal and as the likely appointment of his successor was illegal, the order of dismissal discharge was justified in law.
The High Court thereafter companysidered in brief the merit of each of the writ petitions filed before it.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
6/2001, inter alia, praying for setting aside the declaration of the appellant herein as a member of Panchayat Samiti and for a declaration of himself as elected instead.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No.
It is number in dispute that respondent No.
3205/2003, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the 6th respondent herein, questioning an order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the State Election Commission, was allowed.
Indisputably the said election petition is still pending.
By an order dated 29.1.2003 the said application was dismissed.
