IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8914 of 2011 Neha Ranjan, wife of Rajiv Ranjan, resident of Village and P.O.- Baidpur, Panchayat-Baidpur, Police Station-Shambhuganj, District-Banka. …………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chief State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum- the District Magistrate, Banka. 4. The Returning Officer-cum- Block Development Officer, Shambhuganj, Banka. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Banka. 6. The Officer-Incharge, Shambhuganj, District-Banka. 7. Usha Devi, wife of Rakesh Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Silauta, P.S. Shambuganj, Banka. …………….Respondents. For the petitioner :- Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. S. K. Mandal, S.C. 24 Mr. Arjun Prasad, A.C. to S.C. 24. For State Election Commission :- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. ----------- 2. 18. 05. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This is a petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to déclare the election of Mukhiya at Booth No. 66 and 67 as illegal and direct the respondents to conduct a fresh re-poll at these booths of the Gram Panchayat, Baidpur, as unfair means has been committed during the process of election and further direction to restrain them from counting of the votes conducted the election for the post of Mukhiya and for other post of the Gram Panchayat, Baidpur. Learned counsel for the Election Commission has 2 however, contends that that process of election has been setting and election has been notified even polling has been conducted. It has further been pointed that in view of Article 243 O of Constitution of India starts with a non- obstinate clause and Article 243 O (b) provides that election of Panchayat shall only be called in question by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided by legislature of a State. The legislature has provide the mode to challenge election under Section 137 and 138 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act by election petition before the Munsif within whose jurisdiction such Gram Panchayat is situated. Hence the non-obstinate clause with which Article 243 O of Constitution of India “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution” debar the High Court power to writ jurisdiction or any other court in the land to entertain a suit or proceeding calling in question the election of Gram Panchayat. Hence it shall provide override of other part of Constitution including Article 226 of Constitution of India. Further alternative remedy provided under Article 243 O (b) of Constitution of India provides that election of Panchayat shall only be called in question by an election 3 petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided by legislature of a State. Hence, remedy has been provided under Section 137 and 138 of Gram Panchayat Raj Act then it is neither proper nor prudent to entertain in the writ jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition in view of the fact that petitioner has remedy by way of election petition and hence the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to raise his grievance before the appropriate forum. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)