IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.613 of 2011 PALTI DEVI wife of Chamari Kazi, resident of village Pandarkhap, P.S. Llaukaria, District West Champaran, .. … Petitioner… Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, Patna, 2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, 3. The District Welfare Officer, West Champaran, 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagaha, West Champaran, 5. The Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Bagaha, West Champaran, 6. The Block Development Officer, Bagaha-2, West Champaran, 7. The Returning Officer (Panchayat), Bagaha-2, West Chmparan, 8. The Bihar State Election Commission through the Secretary, Sone Bhawan, Patna, … Respondents… Respondents ----------- 2 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The appellant approached the Writ Court as writ petitioner by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5234 of 2011 raising a grievance that her nomination for contesting election for the post of Mukhiya in the ensuing Gram Panchayat Election has been wrongly rejected. The Writ Court considered the facts that the appellant had submitted her resignation from the post of Vikas Mitra on 01.03.2011 and the same was accepted by 2 the District Magistrate on 8th of March, 2011, but the last date for filing nomination was 7th March, 2011 only and the nomination filed within the permissible time appears to have been rejected on 7th March, 2011. The Writ Court has considered the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Prasad v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhubani & others, reported in AIR 1960 Patna, 589 as well as judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Mamakhal Constituency, Mamakkal, Salem District, reported in AIR 1952 Supreme Court, 64 and it has come to the conclusion that the order rejecting nomination of the appellant does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction by way of interference in the election process. On the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court it was shown that in normal course, matters connected with election proceedings should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before the Election Tribunal and not before any other Court at an intermediate stage. We are in agreement with the views of the Writ 3 Court that once an election is notified, ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the election even in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there be error apparent on the face of the record or an extra- ordinary situation showing that the election held will be no election in the eyes of law. Interference at intermediate stage of the election in ordinary circumstances will do more harm than good, and, therefore, we find no good ground to take a different view of the matter. Subsequent orders in the present matter by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, and by the District Magistrate, Bettiah dated 31.03.2011 and 01.04.2011 have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 1/1, respectively, to the memorandum of appeal. They also show that the ballots have already been printed and at this stage the authorities holding the election would be put to serious difficulties in completing the election already notified, if any interference is made with the order rejecting the appellant’s nomination. In the facts of the case, we are also of the same view as expressed by the Writ Court that no interference should be made with the election process in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 It goes without saying that if so advised, the appellant may seek her remedy in the matter after the election in accordance with the provisions in the Election Act and Rules. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. SC (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)