IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2555 of 2010 1. BIDYA NAND MEHTA S/O LATE DEO LAL MEHTA R/O VILL & P.O.SRINAGAR,P.S.-K. NAGAR, DISTT-PURNIA. ----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, PURNIA ------------------------Respondents. ---------------------------- For the petitioner:- Abhay Kumar, Advocate, Binay Krishan. Advocate. For the Election Commission of India:- J. P. Karn, Sr. Advocate. Siddharth Prasad, Advocate. ----------------------- 2. 27.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Election Commission and its authorities. This writ petition has been finally heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the list of persons on 14.09.2009 (Annexure-5) disqualified under Section 10 (A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 so far it relates to the petitioner as mentioned at serial no. 573 of the list and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. From a bare reading of the Representation of People Act, 1951 it is quite apparent that against such disqualification under Section 10 (A) the remedy is provided under Section 11 for removal or reduction of the period of such disqualification, but the petitioner without filing any application before the authority concerned, namely, the Election Commission, has filed the instant writ petition although the 2 Election Commission was the appropriate authority to decide the said matter as questions of fact are involved. 4. Furthermore, the petitioner was disqualified vide gazette notification dated 7.3.2008 and about 2 years thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed on 11.2.2010 without any proper explanation as to why this writ petition has been filed after such a long delay in Ferbuary 2010 only when the subsequent election was to be held within a few months thereafter and that too without exhausting the aforesaid remedy. 5. It is also apparent from the impugned letter Annexure-5 that neither any date of the list has been mentioned either in Annexure-5 or in the writ petition nor the gazette notification containing the said list as on 7.3.2008 has been brought on record of this case by the petitioner. This clearly shows that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and is trying to obtain some order of this Court without proper appraisal of the facts involved therein. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Anand Kr. ( S. N. Hussain, J.)