IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19253 of 2011 Punam Devi, Wife of Shri Dhrub Singh, resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Election Commission, Bihar through its Secretary. 3. The Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Siwan. 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siwan. 6. The Block Development Officer, Pachrukhi, Siwan. 7. Rajeshwar Singh, Son of Sri Nag Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan.. . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ashok Mishra, AC to SC 7. For the Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 2/ 16.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and State Election Commission. The petitioner was elected as Mukhia of Gopalpur Gram Panchayat. One Sunita Devi, who was also aspiring for the post of Mukhia filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the petitioner to the post of Mukhia. She also took the ground that petitioner was under age on the date of submission of her nomination paper. The petitioner submits that after two months of the filing of the Election petition one Rajeshwar Singh, husband of Sunita Devi, filed a complaint before the State Election Commissioner stating that petitioner did not have necessary eligibility to contest the election, as she was under 21 years of age on the date of filing of nomination paper. In the aforesaid case, the State Election Commissioner entertained the application and has called for a report from the Bihar School 2 Examination Board and has also fixed 23.11.2011, as the date for final hearing in the matter. The petitioner submits that two parallel proceedings, one before the Election Tribunal under section 137 and the other before the State Election Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act on similar issue would not be permissible in law. She further submits that the Election Tribunal has advantage of even considering the disputed question of fact in accordance with Evidence Act. In such circumstances, learned counsel submits that the State Election Commissioner ought not to have entertained the complaint. Learned counsel submits that situation would have different, if no election petition has been preferred by any of the party in respect of disqualification on the ground of eligibility for alleged violation of Section 136(1)(b) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. In my view, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise these points before the State Election Commissioner. The State Election Commissioner should decide this issue as well before passing final order on the issue of incurring disqualification under Section 136 (1)(b) of the Act. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)