IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4687 of 2009 MEENA DEVI, wife of Shambhunath Singh, Resident of village Gopalpur, P.O.Nayagaon, P.S.Nayagaon, Dist. Saran at Chapra-petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra 2.Returning Officer of Panchayat Raj Gopalpur -cum-Block Development Officer, Sonepur Block Sri Gulab Hussain, at Sonepur,Dist. Saran 3.Assistant Election Officer Srif Prabhat Chandra Yadav, Sonepur Block at Sonepur, Dist. Saran 4.Election Commissioner, Bihar Sone Bhawan, R.Block, Patna—Opp.partyh 1st Set-respondents 5.Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Shila Nath Chaurasia resident of village Gopalpur, P.O.Nayagaon, P.S. Nayagaon, Dist.Saran at Chapra- Petitioner/Respondent IInd set 6.Chinta Devi, wife of Vijay Singh 7.Neelam Devi, wife of Dharamnath Singh 8.Pappy Devi, wife of Sudhir Kumar Singh 9.Sirja Devi, wife of Braj Bhushan Singh All are 6 to 9 residents of village Gopalpur P.O.Nayagaon, P.S.Nayagaon,Dist.Saran at Chapra------Opp.parties/Respondents IIIrd set ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Narendra Kumar For the State :Mr.N.K.Prasad,A.C. to G.P.22 For respondent no.4 :Mr.Sanjeev Nikesh ----- 2. 13.4.2009 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.11.2008 passed by Munsif IIIrd, Saran at Chapra in Election case no. 14/66 of 2006. The petitioner is the elected Mukhiya of the Gopalpur Gram Panchayat under Sonepur Block, District Saran. After his coming out successfully in the 2006 elections, the respondent no.5- contesting candidate for the post of Mukhiya has 2 filed Election Case No. 14/66 of 2006 before the Munsif, IIIrd, Saran at Chapra on 12.7.2006. There were as many as eight contesting candidates and in terms of the reliefs prayed for in the election petition all of them were made opposite parties in the election case. Upon issuance of notices all the other contesting candidates, being opposite party nos. 6 to 11, appeared in the court below but the petitioner did not. The process server was examined on oath in the court and he has stated that he had met the petitioner but she refused to sign or give thumb impression as a token of receipt. The matter accordingly proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner.After the evidence of the election petitioner was closed the petitioner suddenly appeared before the court below seeking permission to file the written statement which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 of the learned Munsif. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the impugned order this Court does not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned Munsif in the present matter. It is evident that 3 the petitioner having won the election somehow or other wants to delay the disposal of the election case so as to remain in her office for full five years term by delaying the decision of the election case. The court below has rightly disbelieved the various allegations made by the petitioner with regard to non-service of notice. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/