IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6779 of 2011 Ramchandra Mahto, S/o Late Ramlakhan Mahto, Resident of Village- Suratpur, P.O.- Chhatauna, Block- Samastipur, P.S.+ District-Samastipur. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Samstipur. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Returning Officer (Panchayat), District- Samastipur. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga. 5. The State Election Commission, represented through its Secretary, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Sone Bhawan, 3rd Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna-800001. 6. The Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Sone Bhawan, 3rd Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna-800001. 7. The Secretary, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Sone Bhawan, 3rd Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna-800001. ……..Respondents. For the petitioner :- Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate. For the Election Commission :- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Anjani Kumar, A.A.G.10. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, A.C. to A.A.G.10. ----------- 2. 20. 04. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondent no. 6, the Election Commissioner to accept the nomination paper from the territorial constituency no. 12, Zila Parishad, Samastipur. 3. The petitioner submits that he filed the 2 nomination paper for the member of Zila Parishad for territorial constituency No. 12 , Zila Parishad, Samastipur, but his nomination paper has been rejected on the ground that petitioner was removed from the post of Mukhiya by extraneous consideration by the Government in the year 2006. The petitioner filed a representation vide Annexure- 2 before the Returning Officer on 07. 04. 2011 which has not been disposed off. Hence contends that injustice has been done with the petitioner and hence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be involved and has relied upon decision reported in AIR 1989 SC page 1607 para 18. It has further been contended that rejection of nomination is a ground for declaring the election void under Section 139 D (IV) of Panchayat Raj Act. 4. Learned counsel for the Election Commission has however, contends that under Article 243 O and 243 Z G when the election of Gram Panchayat or Municipal Corporation has been notified and announced and alternative remedy provided under Section 137 and 138 of Gram Panchayat Act and this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India has no power to interfere with the election. 3 5. Hence on the respective submissions of the parties, question for consideration whether this Court have jurisdiction and power to interfere with the election as admittedly election has been notified and process of the election has started. 6. However, grievance of the petitioner is with regard to rejection of his nomination paper and rejection of nomination itself concerned with the election. 7. Both Article 243 O as well as Article 243 Z G starts with a non-obstinate clause "notwithstanding any thing in this Constitution" clearly shows that Article 243 O and Article 243 Z G override the other provision of Constitution including Article 226 of Constitution of India. 8. Article 243 O (b) and 243 Z G (b) further provide that election of Gram Panchayat and Municipality shall only be called in question by election petition presented to such authority and such manner as provided by legislature of State. Section 137 and 138 of Gram Panchayat Act as well as Rule 112 of Panchayat Election Rule provides the remedy in connection with election by election petition before Munsif of the concerned 4 jurisdiction on the ground mentioned in Section 139 and 141 of Gram Panchayat Act as Munsif is the prescribed authority. 9. Hence in view of non-obstinate clause and an alternative remedy provided under the Act the exercise of power under Article 226 is not warranted. 10. In view of the above discussion, the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case 11. However, all the points raised have well being discussed in order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6051 of 2011, hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence this petition is accordingly, dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)