Ex Parte Judgment/Order Passed By Court/Tribunal Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction U/Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution: Patna HC
The Patna High Court observed that any order or judgment passed by a Court or Tribunal is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, even if passed ex parte.
It was further held that this power is not affected by the plea of remedy provided under the CPC.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Harish Kumar observed that, "this Court is of the opinion that any order/judgment passed by a Court or Tribunal even if it is ex parte is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and such power cannot be scuttled nor any embargo be fixed thereupon, on the plea of remedy provided under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C."
Counsel Kalyan Shankar appeared for the petitioner, while Counsel Ajay, among others, appeared for the respondents.
The case revolved around the election for Madhubani Zila Parishad's Constituency No. 12, reserved for Extremely Backward Classes. The petitioner, along with respondents 6 and 5, submitted nominations.Despite winning, the petitioner faced a challenge from respondent 5, who alleged a forged caste certificate by respondent 6.
The election tribunal, despite initially favoring the petitioner, nullified the election results. The petitioner argued that the tribunal's decision relied on presumptions and emphasized the people's right to choose their representative. The respondent contended that, as per Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C, the petitioner's absence lacked justification, making the writ petition inapplicable.
The Court noted that, "The finding of the Election Tribunal does not stand to any reason as to how he came to the conclusion that to what number of votes would be cast in favour of the returned candidate, the election petitioner and other candidates, who were contesting the election."
With that background, the Court also stressed the settled position that election cannot be set aside and declared void merely an assumption and presumption, rather its void character should be clear as a crystal and be staring at a returned candidate.
Subsequently, the Court also noted that there was no evidence of corrupt practice at the hands of returned candidate nor was there any issue of rejection of valid votes in favour of respondent no.5 nor improper reception of votes in favour of the returned candidate.
In light of the same, the petition was allowed.
Cause Title: Md. Tazuddin vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
