IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.666 of 2011 GUDDI KUMARI @ POONAM DEVI , WIFE OF MITHILESH CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHILMIL, P.S. BARAHAT, DISTRICT-BANKA. ……………………………………PETITIONER-APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER (PANCHAYAT), BANKA. 3. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, DISTRICT- BANKA. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM- DISTRICT PROGRAM COORDINATOR, BANKA. 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BAUSI-CUM- ELECTION OFFICER PANCHAYAT ELECTION, 2011 BARAHAT BLOCK, DISTRICT-BANKA. 6. SECRETARY, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA. ……………………………RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam & Mrs. Anita Kumari, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Bijay Shankar Choubey, AC to SC-VIII. For the State Election : M/s. R.S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate Commission and Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. ----------- 2. 28.4.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the State Election Commission. The petitioner raised a grievance before the Election Commission that the Returning Officer had acted 2 improperly and illegally in rejecting his nomination paper and when the Election Commission could not decided the matter expeditiously, he preferred C.W.J.C. No.6327 of 2011, which has been disposed of vide order dated 11.4.2011 by directing the District Magistrate, Banka, to ensure that the Commissions’ directions are complied with within one month from the date the election results are declared in Banka. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us to interfere in the matter in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the purity of election in any democracy should be maintained at each and every stage of the election. No doubt, purity should be maintained in all walks of life including holding the elections but so far as the election matters are concerned, once they have commenced, this Court must be loath to issue any direction which may interfere with the election process. No doubt, directions can be issued for holding election properly as scheduled, if found necessary. Rejection of nomination may affect one person but interference with the election process has much larger impact and affects large number of persons including the electorates and their rights. 3 Hence, we do not propose to interfere in the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. It has been submitted that the report sent by the District Magistrate has already reached the Election Commission on 22nd of April, 2011. It will be open for the State Election Commission to consider that report and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It will be open for the Commission to decide whether it would be proper to interfere with the election process considering the stage of the election. The decision should be taken expeditiously, preferably, within one week. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)