Islam Ansari @ Islam v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

under the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition was filed. Interveners, whose intervention was allowed, filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, they have annexed order dated 19.09.2008 of the Dsitrict Panchayat Raj Officer, Araria whereby the resignation dated 07.08.2008 of the petitioner from the post of Mukhiya was accepted and, till election of a new Mukhiya takes place, the Up Mukhiya, in terms of Section 17 of the Act, was directed to exercise all functions of Mukhiya including financial power. The copy of said order was sent to the petitioner, the Up Mukhiya, the Block Development Officer, Jokihat, the Subdivisional Officer, Araria and the Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Araria information. Another communication dated 20.09.2008 of the Block Development Officer, Jokihat has been annexed where the Block Development 4 Officer has informed the Allahabad Bank and the State Bank of India wherein it was pointed out that the petitioner had resigned whose resignation had been accepted and Up Mukhiya had been authorised to function as such and, accordingly, specimen signature of the Up Mukhiya was sent so that bank accounts are now to be operated under new signatures. It may be stated here that there is no rejoinder to this counter affidavit. State Election Commission has also filed a counter affidavit in which it has stated that pursuant to letter of the Collector –cum- District Magistrate, who is also the District Election Officer (Panchayat) dated 16.12.2008, they had received information that pursuant to petitioner’s resignation, which was accepted on 19.09.2008, a vacancy had occurred which needed to be filled up by election. Then there is counter affidavit by the present District Panchayat Raj Officer, Araria in which it is categorically stated that the letters annexed by the petitioner, showing that the then District Panchayat Raj Officer, by his letter dated 16.08.2008, had accepted the withdrawal of resignation and rejected the letter of resignation, is a forged and fabricated document as there was no occasion for such a letter. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not annexed copy of any letter which he has filed seeking to withdraw his resignation later. A further counter affidavit has been filed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer in which it is stated that at the district level after the writ petition was filed, enquiries were made and it was found that the earlier District 5 Panchayat Raj Officer and some officials of the District Panchayat Raj Office at Araria had connived to create false documents to support the false stand of the petitioner that he had withdrawn his resignation within stipulated time before it could be accepted. Regrettably, by this time, sufficient damage had been done. Petitioner had managed to obtain stay of elections based on forged and fabricated document with the help of some officials, as noted above. The institution of local self Government and the sanctity of orders of this Court was severely compromised. To none of these counter affidavits, there has been a rejoinder. This Court must notice that the resignation was tendered in August, 2008. In September, petitioner’s powers were seized and conferred upon the Up Mukhiya. His authority to enter into bank transactions ceased. He made no protest. No authority was moved nor any writ petition filed and petitioner, if he is to be believed, remained a mute spectator till March, 2009 for six months when he filed this writ petition for the first time challenging the actions that itself belies the stand of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, as petitioner has not chosen to deny the specific assertions in the counter affidavits, the assertions of facts in the counter affidavit have to be accepted which clearly establishes the fact that the petitioner created false documents with aid of officials to obtain wrong orders from this Court and obtain wrongful advantage elsewhere in Government by securing his post as Mukhiya. In view of this, I am left with no option but to 6 dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost of Rs 10,000/- which the petitioner must deposit within one month with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna High Court, Patna and file receipt thereof. In view of the fact that forgeries and manipulations were made, I direct the District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Araria to take necessary steps for criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences committed by him and I further order that for corrupt practices used by the petitioner for securing the elected post of Mukhiya, he shall not be permitted to contest for a period of 5 years for any elected post. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)