Harendra Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Others

Navin Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner alleges irregularities in counting of votes leading to his defeat. It is not in controversy that the process of election has been completed on 17.11.2006.

In view of the provisions of Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 providing the statutory remedy of an election petition, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the writ application The application is dismissed.

The petitioner came to this Court on 29.11.2006, well within the limitation of thirty days under the Panchayat Rules. In Danda Rajeshwari Vs. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others, , the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court rejecting the writ petition in view of the proper remedy being an election petition. The Supreme Court further found no infirmity in the order of the High Court granting liberty to file an election petition within three weeks from the date of the order and if the same be filed the election petition was to be entertained and disposed in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation. In the aforesaid case the matter also related to Panchayat elections and the order of the High Court was upheld on the ground that the writ petition had been preferred well within limitation. In the present case also, the writ petition has been preferred well within limitation. If an election petition is filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today, the question of limitation shall not be gone into and the election petition shall be decided on its own merit in accordance with law.