RAM NARESH SINGH Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET BOARD & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was directed to be issued in the admission matter by order dated 29.3.84 and with the consent of the parties, the case is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. The respondent No. 5 has been declared elected as the Vice Chairman of the Market Committee, the respondent No. 6. The petitioner impugned the said election as illegal. By order as contained in Annexure 3, the Chairman, the respondent No. 1, rejected the objection of the petitioner and upheld the election. The petitioner prays for quashing the order and for declaring the petitioner as having been duly elected as Vice Chairman. The petitioner was elected as a member of the respondent Market Committee and became a candidate in the election of the Vice Chairman. He was opposed by the respondent No. 5 and at the election which took place on 6.9.83, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 held equal number of votes. Thereafter, the tie was resolved by lottery in favour of the respondent No. 5. The petitioner challenges the election on the ground that the respondent No. 4 who was not a member of the Market Committee on 4.9.83 was illegally allowed to vote. The capacity of the respondent No. 4 to participate in the election has been challenged on two grounds. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 was not entitled to be nominated as a member at all for the reasons indicated in the writ application which are not necessary to be dealt with in view of our finding on the second ground.

(2.) It has been contended that assuming that the respondent No. 4 was entitled to be nominated, he became a member of the Committee on the 8th September, 1983 when the order in this regard was notified in the extraordinary (sic) of the Bihar Gazette, as evidenced by Annexure 4. This ground urged on behalf of the petitioner appears to be well founded. The learned Advocates representing the respondents relied on the fact that the order of nomination of the respondent No. 4 had been made earlier than 6.9.83, the date of election. We are not in a position to agree with the respondents. The respondent No. 4 could not be treated as a member of the Committee until the relevant order was notified in the official gazette.

(3.) We, therefore, quash the order in Annexure 3 and direct the Chairman to exclude the vote of the respondent No. 4 and then decide the dispute raised by the petitioner in regard to the election in question. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.