IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.473 of 2010 1. RAVI KANT SHARMA S/O LATE SURENDRA SHARMA R/O VILL.- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BAIKTIARPUR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. BIHAR STATE ELECTION OFFICER PATNA, BIHAR 4. BIHAR STATE ELECTION AUTHORITY, THROUGH IN CHAIRMAN BIHAR, PATNA 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 6. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER PATNA 7. PRAKHAND VIKASH PADADHIKARI CUM ELECTION OFFICER BAKTIARPUR, PATNA 8. ELECTION OFFICER BAKATIARPUR, PATNA ----------- 2. 08.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that elections having been held, results declared, the remedy appropriately lies in election petition. He however expresses apprehension about the question of limitation. Any question of limitation in the proposed election petition is required to be decided in accordance with the law laid down in 1996 (6) SCC 199 (Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma) holding as follows at Paragraph-3:- “3. The remedy is a statutory remedy and limitation is one of the conditions to entertain election petition. By judicial order the limitation cannot be nullified. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of 2 India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd.1 We find no force in his contention. It is not his case that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the election of a Sarpanch and declaration of the result of the election of a Sarpanch, etc. The High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution declined to interfere in the election disputes since alternative remedy of filing election petition and adjudication has been provided in the relevant statutory rules. Far from saying that the High Court has no jurisdiction, the High Court exercised self-restraint in exercise of the power under Article 226 and directed the parties to avail of alternative remedy. In this case, admittedly, the election of Sarpanch was held and result was declared on 24-6- 1995 and the writ petition was filed on 25-6-1995. Power of the Government on the process of electoral rolls was challenged in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petition in question is also one of such writ petitions. Under the circumstances, the High Court thought it expedient that since elections were already held, the disputed questions of facts would be canvassed in an election petition as provided in Rule 3 of the Rules. The High Court rightly declined to investigate into disputed questions of facts and refused to go into the question relegating the parties to pursue the remedy of election dispute. In view of this the High Court has rightly directed filing of the election petition within three weeks from the date of disposal of the writ petition and further directed the Tribunal not to go into the question of limitation and instead decide the matter on merits.” The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)