Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court has quashed the uncontested election of the Chief Councillor of Khusrupur Nagar Panchayat, observing that the nomination paper of a rival candidate was illegally rejected. The Court termed the case as an exceptional and rare example of miscarriage of justice.

The petitioner, currently serving as a Ward Councillor, had earlier held the post of Chief Councillor of Khusrupur. He was removed from that position through a no-confidence motion in April 2022. Later, after the removal of his successor through another no-confidence motion, the seat became vacant again. Elections were scheduled for August 17, 2024.

The petitioner and one other candidate (respondent no.7) filed nominations for the post. However, the Returning Officer rejected the petitioner’s nomination, citing Section 25(5) of the Bihar Municipal Act (as amended in 2022), arguing that the petitioner was not eligible for re-election due to his earlier removal.

The petitioner challenged this action, arguing that Section 25(5) only applies to removals made under Section 25(4)—which deals with administrative removals by the State Government for misconduct, absenteeism, or incapacity—not those removed via a no-confidence motion under Section 25(3).

Supporting this argument, the petitioner cited earlier case law (Vinay Kumar Pappu v. State Election Commission) where the High Court clarified that a person removed via no-confidence motion is not barred from contesting again. Additionally, internal communications from the State Election Commission confirmed that the Returning Officer had misinterpreted the provision and misused his discretionary powers.

Despite arguments from the opposing counsel that election matters should only be challenged through election petitions, the High Court observed that this case fell under exceptional circumstances. Since only two nominations had been filed, rejecting one unjustly meant the other candidate won uncontested, which directly harmed the fairness of the election process.

Ultimately, the Court held that such misuse of authority, especially when admitted by the Election Commission, warranted judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s readiness to intervene in election processes where fundamental fairness is compromised. It sends a clear message that misuse of discretionary powers by election officials, especially when done knowingly and with political motives, will not be tolerated.

For local governance in Bihar and across India, this case reinforces the importance of fair electoral procedures. It also clarifies that a no-confidence removal does not bar someone from contesting again unless explicitly disqualified under law. For the public, it ensures that electoral choices are not unjustly restricted by biased officials.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether removal by no-confidence motion disqualifies a candidate under Section 25(5): No. The Court held that Section 25(5) applies only to removals under Section 25(4), not Section 25(3).
• Whether the Returning Officer acted within legal bounds in rejecting the nomination: No. The Court found the rejection arbitrary and in bad faith.
• Can Article 226 be invoked in election matters: Yes, in exceptional cases like this where rejection of nomination leads to uncontested election and miscarriage of justice.
• Outcome: Election of respondent no.7 quashed; fresh election ordered.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Vinay Kumar Pappu v. State Election Commission, Bihar (CWJC No. 12051/2015)

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983
• N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64
• Laxmibai v. Collector, Nanded, AIR 2020 SC 3393
• Rama Ballabh Singh Keshri v. State of Bihar, 2001(2) PLJR 267
• Kuldip Kumar v. UT Chandigarh, 2024(3) SCC 526
• Praful Chandra Sudhanshu v. State Election Commission (Municipality), 2013(2) PLJR 114
• N.S. Madhavan v. Shyamdeo Prasad, 2010(3) PLJR 578

Case Title
Manik Lal Prasad v. State of Bihar & Others

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13098 of 2024

Citation(s)– 2025 (1) PLJR 129

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For Petitioner: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Mr. Awnish Kumar, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh
• For State Election Commission: Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Mr. Girish Pandey
• For Respondent No.7: Mr. Amit Shrivastava (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Ranjeet Choubey
• For State: Mr. Ramadhar Singh (GP 25)
• For Nagar Panchayat: Mr. Ashok Kumar

Link to Judgment
MTUjMTMwOTgjMjAyNCM5I04=-g4TjoF4uPTs=

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.