IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8362 of 2011 Muneshwar Prasad, son of Late Dasrath Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Karma, Post Office- Dharampur, Block-Fatehpur, Gram Panchayat-Naudiha, Sultanpur, District- Gaya. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Gaya. 5. The Block Development Officer, Fatehpur Block, District- Gaya. 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Naudiha Sultanpur, District- Gaya. ……….Respondents. For the petitioner :- Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Udai Shankar Singth, A.C to G.A.2. For the Election Commission,Bihar :- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. ----------- 2. 11. 05. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the polling booth no. 150 at Community Hall Sultanpur which is alleged to have been transferred from polling booth Community Hall, Karma Kari to Community Hall, Sultanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the last general election of Gram Panchayat as well as Assembly and Parliamentary election the polling booth of the locality was at Community Hall, Karmakari, but in this Panchayat election of 2011 by order dated 02.05. 2011, the 2 polling booth of the locality at Community Hall, Karma Kari have been transferred to Community Hall, Sultanpur. This has caused inconvenience to the voters as the said booth at Sultanpur is to 3 K.M. away from the earlier polling booth of Community Hall, Karmakari. 4. Learned counsel for the Election commission however, opposed the prayer and stated that writ petition has not been maintainable in view of Section 137 and 138 of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act as well as Article 243 O of the Constitution of India and has placed reliance upon unreported decision in C.W.J.C. No. 6425 of 2011. It has further been stated that in view of Article 243 O of Constitution of India confer a remedy lies in the election petition under Section 137 and 138 of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act before the Election Commission. 5. However, it is not in dispute that election has been announced and the election process has set in after notification of the election. The choice of booth and fixing of booth also comes under the election. The non-obstinate clause Article 243 O of Constitution of India and 243 O (b) debar a remedy in case of election except by an election petition and hence writ is not maintainable. Any direction 3 for grievance regarding booth comes under the definition of election and hence in view Article 243 of Constitution of India, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the process of election under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fixing booth in Panchayat election is domain of State Election Commission or the election petition before concern Munsif. Hence no remedy by writ petition is sustainable. 6. In that view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed a petition before the Election Commission. However, the petitioner may raise his grievance before the Election and Election Commission may consider the petition filed by the petitioner. 7. In view of above observations/direction the writ petition is disposed of. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)