IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.620 of 2008 USHA SINHA Versus THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION& ORS. ---- For the appellant: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam For the respondent nos.1 to 4 : Mr. K.B. Nath Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 27th August, 2008 The appeal does not deserve to be admitted for the reasons that we indicate immediately hereinafter. 2. That the name of the respondent no.10 finds place in the voter list is not disputed. That she has been elected Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Gajipur having secured maximum votes in Gram Panchayat Election, 2006 is also not in dispute. 3. Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 mandates that election to any office of a Gram Panchayat shall not be called in question except by way of an election petition as prescribed. The Election Commission is empowered to examine the limited question whether the Member of Panchayat was, before election or has become after election, subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Section 136 and nothing beyond that 4. Apparently, the allegation made by the appellant against 2 the respondent no.10 is not covered by any of the clauses of Section 136. It is Section 135 that provides for qualification of Membership. It provides that every person whose name is in the list of voters of any Panchayat constituency shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member or office bearer of the Panchayat. 5. As already indicated above, since the name of respondent no.10 is entered in the list of voters of Gajipur Gram Panchayat, prima facie, she meets qualification prescribed under Section 135. 6. The contention that the list of voters, in which the name of the respondent no.10 is forged, cannot be the subject matter of consideration by the Election Commission under Section 136(2). 7. In this view of the matter, the direction given by the State Election Commission refusing to take cognizance of the complaint of the appellant for setting aside the election of the respondent no.10 cannot be faulted. 8. Dismissal of the writ petition by the single judge does not call for any interference. 9. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/- 3