Geeta Devi v. The State Election Commission (Panchayat)
CWJC/18813/2024 · 2026-08-19
A Abhishek Reddy
body2024
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2427 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2427 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18813 of 2024 ====================================================== Geeta Devi, wife of Ram Lakhan Paswan, resident of village- Rampur Madan, P.S. Bahadurpur District - Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the Secretary
2. The District Magistrate cum- District Election Officer (Panchayat), Darbhanga, District - Darbhanga.
3. The Sub- Divisional Officer-cum-Returning Officer, Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga.
4. Seeta Devi wife of Shambhu Paswan Resident of village and P.S. Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga,
5. Arti Devi wife of not known to the petitioner Resident of village- Rampur Madan, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Jha, Adv, Mr.Kislay Raj, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (2) For the SEC Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Girish Pandey, adv. For the Zila Parishad Mr. Vivek Pd., Adv. For the Resp. No. 4 Mr. Pratiyush Kr., Adv. Mr. Mukund Raj, Adv. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 11 19-08-2026 Mr. Kishlay Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that his client, Geeta Devi, never approached him for taking a “No Objection Vakalatnama” or for withdrawing the case.
2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by Mr. Madhav Kumar Jha, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, containing false allegations.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2024(11) dt.19-08-2026 2/2
3. Mr. Madhav Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that his client does not want to pursue the present writ petition and seeks permission to withdraw the same.
4. Permissions is granted.
5. Having regard to the same, without prejudice to the
contentions raised by Mr. Kishlay Raj, Advocate or the averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed by Mr. Madhav Kumar Jha, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Bhardwaj/- (A. Abhishek Reddy , J) U