IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14247 of 2007 RAMESHWAR SINGH, son of late Awatar Singh, resident of village Balia, P.O. Balia, P.S. Kutumba, District- Aurangabad… petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Collector, Aurangabad. 2. Election Commission through Election Commissioner,Bihar,Patna. 3. Assistant Returning Officer,Kutumba,Aurangabad. 4. Kapildeo Pandey, son of late Mahesh Pandey,resident of village-Pandey Bigha, P.O. Balia, P.S.Amba (Kutumba), District-Aurangabad 5. Arwind Singh, son of Ramgati Singh, resident of village Bhakhara, P.O. Deshpur, P.S. Kutumba, District- Aurangabad. 6. Satyendra Paswan, son of Janak Paswan, resident of village Bhatt Bigha, P.O. Bedul, P.S. Kutumba, District- Aurangabad. 7. Sarju Prajapati, son of Chandrika Prajapati, resident of village- Jagai, P.O. Balia, P.S. Kutumba, District- Aurangabad…Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.N.P. Sharma,Senior Advocate Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh,Advocate For Election Commission: Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh,Advocate --- 2. 29.4.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.9.2007 passed by the Munsif, Aurangabad in Election Petition Case No. 5 of 2006, by which he has rejected the petition raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the election petition for non- compliance of Section 137 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 read with Rule 106 (2) (k) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection petition raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the election petition was filed on two grounds. The first being that there was non- compliance of Section 137 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 read with Rule 106 (2) (k) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006, since there was a misjoinder of parties as the election petitioner had joined the officials as opposite party Nos. 1 2 to 3 to the election petition, which is not permissible under the said provisions of the Act and Rules. The second ground was that the election petition did not contain material facts and material particulars as required under the law settled by the Apex Court though there are allegations of commission of corrupt practice and also commission of illegalities and irregularities in counting of the ballot papers. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue the matter only on the second ground that the election petition does not contain the material facts and material particulars and thus ought to have been rejected at the outset on the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Somant N. Balakrishna, etc. vs. George Fernandez and others, etc.: AIR 1969 SC 1201,Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi: AIR 1986 SC 1253 and Hardwari Lal vs. Kanwal Singh: AIR 1972 SC 515. It is submitted that in the absence of such material particulars, the election petition ought to have been dismissed at the outset and the winning candidate should not be compelled to fight such an election petition. It is true that while the objection petition even in its heading and in its main part was filed on the ground of non-compliance of Section 137 (2) of the Act and Rule 106 (2) (k) of the Rules, but in paragraph No.3 of the petition, it was stated that apart from the above illegality, the election petition is fit to be dismissed as it does not contain material facts and material particulars. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.9.2007 of the learned Munsif, Aurangabad it is evident that the only point 3 pressed and argued before him was with regard to the election petition being barred by the provisions of Section 137 (2) of the Act and Rule 106 (2) (k) of the Rules. The other ground, which is now being raised before this Court, was not pressed before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court cannot permit the said point to be raised and pressed for the first time in its writ jurisdiction. So far as rejection of the objection petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner does not seriously contend that the election petition ought to have been dismissed only on the ground of impleadment of certain officials in the election petition when all the necessary parties had also been made parties to the election petition. In the light of the above discussions, there does not appear to be any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to make arguments with regard to the other ground taken in the objection petition but not pressed earlier, at the stage of final argument before the Tribunal. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)