IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6436 of 2011 NAIM KHAN, Son of Chand Khan @ Hashim Khan, resident of village – Puraini, P.S. – Srinagar, District – Madhepura. ……….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna, Sone Bhawan, Patna. 3. Director Panchayati Raj Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat) Madhepura. 5. Deputy Election Officer-Cum-Electrol Officer, Kumar Khand-Cum- Land Reform Deputy Commissioner, Madhepura. 6. District Panchayati Raj Officer, Madhepura. 7. Block Development Officer, Kumarkhand, District – Madhepura. 8. Circle Officer, Kumarkhand, District – Madhepura. ………. Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate. For the Election Commission :- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Kundan Kumar, A.C. to S.C. – I. 02/ 13.04.2011 Heard. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.03.2011 issued vide memo no. 35 by the Deputy Election Officer-cum- Electoral Officer, Kumar Khand-Cum-Land Reform Deputy Commissioner, Madhepura by which the name of the petitioner has been cancelled for contesting the Bihar Panchayat Election, 2011 for the Post of Mukhiya. The grievance of the petitioner is about the rejection of the nomination for contesting the election for the post of 2 Mukhiya of Purani Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the Election Commission, however, submits that the Panchayat Election of the Gram Panchayat has been notified and the process of the election has been set in and hence in view of Article 243 (O) of the Constitution of India, this Court has no jurisdiction to issue direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding any of the violation in the election and the remedy to the petitioner is by way of the Election Petition as enshrined under Articles 137 and 138 of the Bihar Panchayat Rules. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Article 116 of the Constitution the Election Commission is required to look into the matter about the correctness or otherwise to conduct the election in accordance with law. Hence, on respective submissions, the question for consideration is whether remedy by way of writ petition is available to the petitioner. However, having regard to the fact that Article 243 (O) of the Constitution of India starts with a non-obstinate clause, notwithstanding anything anywhere and Article 243(O)(b) provides that no election can be called in question 3 except by an election petition in accordance with law of legislature and Panchayat Act provides the remedy by way of election petition before concern Munsif and hence the remedy provided is the only remedy provided to the petitioner laid down under Article 137 and 138 of the Panchayat Election Rules and hence since the rejection of the nomination is within the process of election and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power in view of specific remedy provided by way of election petition. However, the petitioner may in his discretion move the authority concerned under Section 116 of the Panchayat Rule and if such petition is filed then the authority concerned may in its discretion to proceed in accordance with law to look into the grievance of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)