IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8264 of 2011 RAJMAN SAH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 20.05.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner filed his nomination for the post of Sarpanch in the Panchayat election for Gram Panchayat Raj Chhapra Bahas (South), P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran. It is submitted that his nomination was accepted after scrutiny. But no symbol was allotted to him. He was informed that his name has been deleted from the voters list and therefore acceptance of the nomination was wrong. Learned Counsel submits the voters list of 2010 Assembly Elections was made the base document by the Commission ignoring any error that may have been committed in the preparation of the electoral roll in 2011 for the Panchayat elections. The petitioner’s name figures in 2010 Assembly elections validly and has not been deleted. It was therefore wrong for the Commission to show the petitioner as deleted person in the electoral roll prepared for 2011 Panchayat elections. Based on the instruction of the Commission his nomination has to be accepted and he be allowed to contest. Counsel for the Commission submits that the matter has been enquired into by the Commission which has called for a report from the District Election Officer (Panchayat) cum District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. The latter by his report dated 25.4.2011 bearing No. 563 has informed that the name of the petitioner was deleted from the voters list of 2010 and added in the list of deleted names by the computer software. Prior to finalization of the voters list for the Panchayat elections time was fixed for filing of any objection from 5.1.2011 to 18.1.2011 whereafter the objections were considered in between 5.1.2011 to 25.1.2011. Those who filed objections their grievances were considered and corrections made. No objection was filed by the petitioner at any stage. Once the voters list has been finalized the statute itself prohibits any interference with the same. The petitioner contends that his name figures in the voters list of 2010 and which is sheet anchor of his claim. The District Election Officer denies that. It then becomes a disputed question of fact. The Court does not find it possible in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the aforesaid background to examine the question of rejection of his nomination and failure to allot symbol as these are matters which can more appropriately be examined in an election petition, where evidence, both oral and documentary shall be led. Let the letter dated 25.4.2011 produced by the Counsel for the Commission be kept on the record. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)