NASIMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A voters list was prepared and on the basis of that voters list, the private respondent tried his luck at the election and lost. Subsequently he turned around and in the election petition contended that the voters list was wrong and the learned Munsif has accepted such contention and rejected the votes obtained by the petitioner, who was declared elected. It is surprising that the Munsif even did not try to ascertain who were those persons whose names were wrongly entered in the voters list. It is even more surprising that before curtaining the voters from the list, the Munsif did not try to ascertain who were those and accordingly rejected the genuine votes. The Munsif, it seems by reading of the judgment wanted to declare the private respondent as winner and has passed a judgment which cannot stand the test of law even for one second. It did not dawn on to the Munsif that a person, who had participated in the election on the basis of the voters list and has tried his luck on the basis thereof, after losing cannot challenge the voters list.

(2.) The learned counsel for the private respondent contended that there cannot be any dispute that there is a discrepancy in between the census and the voters list. On the basis of the census, the election was not held. The census may be the basis of preparation of the voters list but before the voters list is prepared, a provisional voters list is made and published catling upon the people to submit objections in relation thereto. It is the duty of the people then to approach the authority obliged to prepare the voters list so as to make the voters list a correct voters list. After having had failed to discharge such obligation when the private respondent permitted the voters list to reach finality and thereupon took a chance on the basis of such voters list to win the election, he cannot contend that the voters list was bad or that the voters list, as prepared, is discrepant with that of the census. In any event, whether the voters list was correct or whether the census was correct is not the question. The question is whether by taking the steps, as complained of in the writ petition, the private respondent could at all interfere with the legal right which accrued in favour of the petitioner upon the declaration that he has won the election after counting of votes cast on the basis of the said voters list on the basis whereof the private respondent too contested the election.

(3.) The learned counsel for the private respondent then submitted on the basis of a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. Jamesh Chadwick and Bros. Ltd., that the petitioner has alternative remedy of preferring an appeal and accordingly the writ petition should not be entertained. The judgment, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is so obnoxious and perverse that even if an alternative remedy is available, the writ Court will as a duty should interfere in these matters and quash these judgments as quickly as possible so that they do not remain in he records even for one second. I, however, do not think that there is any other alternative remedy at all.