1. In an application under Article- 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, these petitioners have prayed for quashing the election of the Municipal Commissioners of the Siwan Municipality which was held on 1st Oct 1977 and the result of the. election was published on 3rd Oct., 1977.

2. The case of petitioner No. 11 was that he was eligible for being candidate for the Municipal Commissioner (see Para No. 10 of the writ petition). It is also stated that petitioner No. 2 was a candidate from ward No. 9, and petitioner No. 3 was a candidate from ward No. 4 (see paras 12 and 13 of the writ petition). In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the entire election of the Municipal Commissioners of the Siwan Municipality which was held on 1st October, 1977.

3. The short point for consideration is :

Whether in a case where the entire election of a certain Municipality is being challenged, such a dispute can be decided by the Election Commissioner or not ?

4. In our opinion, the answer must be given in the alternative. The points raised is this case are covered by two Supreme Court decisions in Nanhoo Mal V/s. Hira Mat, AIR 1975 SC 2140 and in R.R. Shrivastava V/s. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1977 SC 1703. In the latter case, the Supreme Court has held that no foundation whatever for thinking that where the challenge is to an entire election then the writ jurisdiction springs into action." The contention of the learned Counsel of the petitioners is that where the entire election of a certain Municipality is challenged, then the forum for agitating such a matter lies before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and not before the Election Commissioner under Rule 74 of the Bihar Municipal Election and Election Petitions Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

5. It is relevant at this stage to quote Rule 74 of the Rules which runs as follows :

"74. Election petitions :-

No election to the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Chairman, Vice-Chairman or President under these rules shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with this Part".

On perusal of Rule 74 of the Rules, it is clear that if anyone desires to challenge the election to the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Chairman, Vice-Chairman or President, then such a challenge can be made only by filing an election petition- before the Election Commissioner. In the present case, these petitioners are challenging the entire election of the Siwan Municipality on the ground of non-compliance with R.7(1) of the Rules. These petitioners have also challenged the validity of the election on the ground of not following Rule 4 of the Rules. While arguing, learned Counsel for the petitioners did not press the case of the petitioners on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 4 of the Rules for the reason that the facts stated in paragraph No. 19 of the petition have been controverted by respondents 1 and 2 in their counter-affidavit in paragraph No. 14. In view of the fact that this is a disputed question of fact, he did not press the invalidity of the election of the Municipal Commissioner of Siwan Municipality on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 4 of the Rules. Then remains Rule 7 of the Rules which runs as follows :

"7. Notification for election for Commissioners. (1) For the purpose of constituting the Municipality or re-constituting it on the expiration of the term of office of the Commissioners or under S.386, the District Magistrate shall, by a notification published in the Official Gazette and in the manner laid down in Sec.356, call upon all the wards of the Municipality to select Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act and these rules before such date as may be specified in the notification : Provided that in the case of a general election held on the eve of the expiration of the term of the Commissioners, a notification under this rule shall n