IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12708 of 2009 SMT.RENU DEVI @ RENU SINHA w/o Shivshankar Prasad, resident of village- Manorampur, P.O. and p.S. Asthawan, District- Nalanda. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Bihar State Election Commission through the Secretary Bihar State Election Commission, Patna. 3. The District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum- District Magistrate, Nalanda. 4. The Election Officer (Panchayat Election)-cum- the Block Development Officer, Asthawan Block, District-Nalanda. 5. The Assistant Election Officer (Panchayat Election)-cum- the Block Development Officer, Asthawan Block, District-Nalanda. 6. Shyama Devi w/o Surendra Prasad, resident of village- Andi, P.O. Andi, P.S. Asthawan, District- Nalanda. 7. Nilam Devi w/o Sunil Kumar, r/o village- Andi, P.O. Andi, P.S. Asthawan, District- Nalanda. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.N.Choubey,Sr.Adv. 4 11.3.2010 The petitioner was elected as a member of Andi Gram Panchayat, Asthawan Block in the district of Nalanda. It is not in dispute that , as contemplated by Rule 81 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006, the Returning Officer recorded particulars of the election result in statutory Form 21 and on doing so declared petitioner elected by an endorsing the same in Form 21 itself. This endorsement was made on 17.6.2006. Subsequently, as contemplated under Rule 82 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 , a certificate was granted in statutory Form 22 to the petitioner. Petitioner’s election was challenged by respondent no.6 before the Munsif, Nalanda, which is the election tribunal. The challenge was on various grounds. Petitioner appeared and raised various contentions in 2 her defence. One of the contentions that was raised and an issue framed was whether the election petition was barred by limitation beyond thirty days prescribed for filing thereof, as provided in Rule 106 of the Rules. The election tribunal rejected the petitioner’s contention that the election petition was barred by limitation. The election tribunal proceeded to calculate starting the limitation period from the date the certificate was granted in terms of Rule 82 in statutory Form 22, which was granted on 19.6.2006. The election petition having been filed on 18.7.2006, it was held to be within the time. Respondent no.6, whose election petition has been allowed, has appeared. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition raises a short issue on the facts aforesaid that the election petition being barred by limitation, the judgment cannot be sustained. As noticed above, as provided under Rule 81, the results were endorsed on statutory Form 21 on 17.6.2006. That is the date when results are declared, for Rule 82 contemplates issuance of Form 22 after declaration of election results. That apparently the election tribunal failed to notice. Form 22 is of no avail. It is the date of Form 21 that is to be taken as the date of declaration. That being 17th and the election petition having been filed on 18th of July, 2006, it was surely beyond thirty days and not within 3 thirty days, as contemplated under Rule 106 of the Rules. That being so, the election petition was barred by limitation and could not have been entertained at all. In the result, it is held that the election petition being barred by limitation, no judgment could have been rendered and issue has to be decided as against the election petitioner, which I do accordingly. The election petition is dismissed. The writ petition is allowed and the judgment dated 19.8.2009, as rendered by the Election Tribunal, Nalanda in Election Petition no. 12 of 2006 is set aside. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)