IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11586 of 2011 Beauty Devi, W/O Shri Sunil Ray, R/O Village - Bishunpur, P.O. - Madhopur, P.S. - Akilpur, District- Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Danapur, Distt. – Patna. 4. The Block Development Office, Block - Danapur, Distt. – Patna. 5. The Bihar State Election Commission represented through its Secretary, the Bihar State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna – 800001. 6. The Commissioner, the Bihar State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna – 800001. 7. The Secretary, the Bihar State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna - 800001 8. Smt. Rekha Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur represented through its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 9. Shri Panchi Paswan, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur represented through its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 10. Smt. Sangeeta Devi No. II, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur represented through its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 11. Shri Laleshwar Thakur, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 12. Smt. Sunita Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 13. Smt. Pachia Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 14. Shri Shankar Choudhary, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 15. Smt. Sharmila Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 16. Md. Ismail, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 17. Shri. Surya Kant Sharma, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 18. Shri Dindayal Ram, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 19. Shri Upendra Singh, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur 2 Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 20. Shri Shiv Prasad, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 21. Shri Yogedra Rai, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 22. Smt. Puspa Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 23. Smt. Babita Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna 24. Smt. Neebha Kumari, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Danapur Represented Through Its Secretary-Cum-Block Development Officer, Danapur, Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2/ 14.11.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, State Election Commission and State of Bihar. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire election process of Panchayat Samiti, Danapur, by which respondent no.23 has been elected as Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Danapur, in complete defiance of Rules 94, 95 and also 96 of the Panchayat Raj Election Rules, 2006 and also contrary to Form 26 (Under Rule 94). The petitioner submits that as per the aforesaid Rules, the Voters have to give cross mark in favour of a candidate instead of marking the ballet paper as plus (+) sign. He alleges that plus sign marked in favour of respondent no.23 was also counted, which is contrary to the Rules. Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned Counsel for State Election Commission, submits that Section 44 provides that that the dispute regarding election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh 3 shall be in accordance with law, as prescribed by State Election Commission. In view of Section 44 as well as in view of direction of this Court, the State Election Commission framed the procedure for challenging the election of Pramukh and Up- Pramukh vide letter no. Vidhi 60-36/2007-941 dated 05.05.2010 published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 31.07.2010. As per provision 19 thereof, it is the Collector of the District, who is competent to hear the dispute regarding Election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. In view of provisions made by State Election Commission under Section 44 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the petitioner may seek his remedy before the Collector of the District. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Collector of the district has already applied his mind and has decided the issue in favour of respondent no.23. This writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Collector, if so advised. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)