IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6051 of 2011 Alpana Devi, W/o Sri Suresh Sao, R/o- Asthawan, P.S. Asthawan, District- Nalanda. ………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Panchayati Raj Govt. of Bihar at Patna. 2. Secretary, Panchyati Raj, Govt. of Bihar at Patna. 3. State Election Commission through the Secretary, Bihar, at Patna. 4. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 5. District Panchyat Election Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 6. Block Development Officer-cum-Returning Officer, Asthawan Block at Asthwan. ……….Opposite Paries. ----------- 3. 20. 04. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23. 03. 2011 by which the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Mukhiya has been rejected under Rule 41 (2) of Bihar Panchayat Election Rule 2006. 3. The case of the petitioner is that notification for election of the Panchayat was issued under Asthawan Block under the District of Nalanda. The petitioner filed nomination for election of the Mukhiya under Asthawan Block on 18. 03. 2011 and deposited security amount. However, nomination of the petitioner has been rejected 2 on the ground that she belongs caste Surdhi which comes under Annexure-2 of the list and filed a representation before the State Election Commission on 24. 03. 2011, but no order has been passed and hence has preferred this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she belongs to backward class and being a lady and she belongs to that category in which she has filed nomination and her nomination has wrongly been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission however, contended that since the matter concerned with rejection of the nomination paper which is comes under the process of election and hence in view of Article 243 O of the Constitution of India and further remedy under Section 116 of Bihar Panchayat Rules to move the State Election Commission, the writ Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and has relied upon unreported decision in C.W.J.C. 5234 of 2011 (Palti Devi Vrs. The State of Bihar & ors.) as also further decision reported in 2006 (2) PLJR page 482 that once the process of election has been set in the writ court can not interfere with the same during the election with 3 regard to process of election. 6. Hence on the respective submissions of the parties, question for consideration whether writ petition is maintainable in view of specific bar of article 243 O of the Constitution of India and alternative remedy provided under election petition or under Section 116 of the Bihar Panchayat Rules. However, considering the fact that writ petition has been filed with regard to rejection of the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Mukhiya. However, the nomination has been filed to contest the election. Scrutiny of the validity of the nomination paper and the rejection of the same are the definite stage of election and hence it comes strict definition of the election. Hence in view of Article 243 O of the Constitution of India remedy to the petitioner is by election petition in accordance with law and hence, petitioner is not entitle for any remedy by means of a writ. Article 243 O starts with a non-obstinate clause and Article 243 O (b) lay down that no election has been called in question except by election petition prescribed in manner as provided by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature and Section 137 of Bihar Panchayat 4 Election Act provide remedy by election petition before concerned Returning Officer. 7. Article 243 O starts with a non-obstinate clause "notwithstanding any thing" clearly shows that it override the other provision even Article 226 of Constitution of India in case of election dispute arise out of Panchayat election require to be decided exclusively by Munsif of concern place as enshrine in Section 137 of the Panchayat Act and hence the restriction imposed under Article 243 O has provided for enforcement of right with a special remedy, hence that remedy alone is available to the person. However, in view of specific mentioned giving specific right and remedy then the petitioner can not claim a remedy by the writ jurisdiction particularly, during the period till the process of the election is over. 8. Hence the petitioner has no right to claim or agitate the grievance about the rejection of nomination under the writ jurisdiction and hence there is no merit in this petition and hence the petition is dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)