IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7864 of 2011 Braj Bhushan Sharma, son of Late Ram Dev Singh, resident Of Village- Kundila, P.S. Shakurabad, Block- Ratani Faridpur, District- Jehanabad. ………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Election Commission Bihar through its Commissioner, Sone Bhawan, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Jehanabad. 3. The Dy. Election Officer-cum-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jehanabad. 4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Assistant Returning Officer, Ratani Faridpur, District- Jehanabad. ………..Respondents. ----------- 2. 04. 05. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This writ petition has been file for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent- authorities to restore the polling booth No. 87 at Panchayat Bhawan, Kundila (west part) which was fixed as polling booth by the State Election Commission for Panchayat election in the year 2001 and 2006, after quashing the polling booth at Ward No. 6 of Middle School, Kundila approved by the Election Commission 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the year 2001 and 2006 in Panchayat Election polling booth no. 87 at Panchayat Bhawan, Kundila was fixed, but now it has been shifted to Ward No. 6 at Middle School Kundila and there is inconvenience to the people of 2 the locality and to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in unreported decision in C.W.J.C. No. 7211 of 2011 with a prayer for issuing a direction to the State Election Commission in view of report of the Block Development Officer, Ratani, Faridpur that booth can be shifted. 4. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission has opposed the maintainability of writ in view of Article 243 O of Constitution of India and placed reliance on order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C No.,6840 of 2011 as well as C.W.J.C. No. 6779 of 2011. 5. However, Article 243 O of Constitution of India starts with a non-obstinate clause “notwithstanding any thing under Constitution of India” which shows that it override the other provision of Constitution even Article 226 of Constitution of India. Further Article 243 O (b) provides that no election shall be called in question except by election petition as per the law provided by legislature. Section 137 and 138 of Panchayat Raj Act provides that the matter regarding election of Panchayat be decided by Munsif of concerned jurisdiction. 6. Since the matter concerned with choice of 3 booth, which is subject matter of election of Panchayat, it is domain within the State Election Commission. However, change of booth is within the domain of State Election Commission and when a remedy provided then the petitioner required to pursue that remedy. Hence, when alternative remedy provided him, it is not proper to entertain the writ petition. 7. However, having regard to the facts, the matter concerned with choice of booth which is under domain of State Election Commission. Hence if representation of the petitioner forwarded by District Election Officer is placed before the Election Commission then the Election Commission shall consider on the representation of the petitioner. 8. With the above observations/directions the writ petition is disposed of. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)