IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C.NO. 6048 OF 2009 1.Brahmanand Mandal, son of late Suraj Naraian Das, At Garden Bazar, Bekapur, P.S., Town Munger,Dist.Munger 2.Ramdeo Singh Yadav, son of late Govind Prasad Yadav of Mohallah Khaja Bazar, P.S. Kasim Bazar,Dist. Munger—petitioners -versus- 1.The Union of India, through Home Commissioner,Govt. of India,New Delhi 2.The Chief Election Commissioner, Nirwachan Bhawan,New Delhi 3.The Chief Electoral Officer, Patna 4.The Returning Officer, 28-Munger Lok Sabha Constituency,Munger 5.Rambadan Rai, son of not known, village Ram Deri,P.S.Matihari District Begusarai------------------------------------------------respondents ------ For the petitioners :Mr.Badri Nr.Singh For Union of India :Mr.Sudhir Singh For Election Commission of India:Mr.J.P.Karn ----- 2. 14.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Election Commission of India. The petitioners seek a declaration of the nomination paper of respondent no.5 as false and thereby to declare the entire election of 28- Munger Parliamentary Constituency void and further reelection to be conducted only among other qualified candidates. At the outset learned counsel for the Election Commission of India raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition stating that it is barred by the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners answering to the same relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State Election Commission vs. Punam Kumari:2009(2) PLJR 189. The said case does not at all support the stand of the petitioners as in that case this Court had held that the State Election Commission had no 2 authority to decide the issue of disqualification of a returned candidate which he had on the date of his election and even this Court did not have the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to vest such a power in it which is not provided by law and for the said reason the Division Bench had set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is clearly barred under the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution since not only the election process is not yet over by declaration of results which is yet to be done but even thereafter the only recourse left to the petitioners is by way of filing an election petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ application is held to be not maintainable and it is, accordingly,dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/