Patna High Court
Dr. Neeraj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8572 of 2020
======================================================
1. Dr. Neeraj Kumar, aged about 51 years (Male) Son of Sri G D Singhal,
Resident of 312, A P Colony, Gaya, PS-Gaya Town, District-Gaya.
2. Dr. Atal Kumar, aged about 47 years (Male) Son of Sri Mahendra Sharma,
Resident of Lakhibag. Road No.2, Buniyadganj, Gaya, P.S.-Muffasil,
District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Gaya.
2. District Election Officer-Cum-District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Election Commission, Bihar at Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sourendra Pandey, Advocate
For the Election Commission of India : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Sourendra Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioners; learned counsel for the State and Mr. Siddhartha
Prasad, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India.
3. The petitioners have moved the Court for the
following relief:
"That this application is for issuance
of appropriate writ, rule, direction in the form of
writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated
28.09.2020 issued by the District Election
Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Gaya whereby
the petitioners have been appointed as Patrolling
Magistrates for the conduct of Bihar Legislative
Patna High Court CWJC No.8572 of 2020 dt.02-02-2021
Assembly Elections 2020 which is against
directions dated 16.02.2010 issued by the
Election Commission of India. And, after setting
aside the aforesaid order, be further pleased to
issue writ of Mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents for appointing
petitioners on the post that is commensurate to
their class of service or pay scale and for any
other writ, rule, direction for which the writ
petitioners may be entitled under such facts and
circumstances."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted
that the period is over and the relief has also become infructuous.
However, he submitted that repeatedly the cause of action is
arising as the authorities are behaving in an arbitrary manner in
drafting persons similarly situated to the petitioners for election
duty, both in contravention of the direction of the Election
Commission of India as also not commensurate with their status,
as persons who are juniors to the petitioners have been given better
responsibility as compared to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the Election Commission of India
submitted that the contention of the petitioners is misplaced as the
direction is that such persons should not be given any polling duty
in polling station premises, but even that can be done by recording
specific reasons. However, it was submitted that in the present
case, they were deputed as Patrolling Magistrate, which is a
supervisory post as they had to ensure that everything was working
properly, especially on the law-and-order front in different booths
Patna High Court CWJC No.8572 of 2020 dt.02-02-2021
by visiting those booths and they were not static at any one polling
station.
6. Be that as it may, as the relief has become academic,
the Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter and
would further observe that no peremptory or presumptive writ is
required to be issued. As and when any cause of action arises, any
citizen has a right to approach the appropriate forum, including
this Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar/ Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR
U
T
