1. The petitioners are residents of Village Kulharia under the territorial jurisdiction of the Kulharia Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 7 is a resident of Village Kuberchak, Dhandiha Gram Panchayat. The petitioners are voters of Kulharia Gram Panchayat while respondent no. 7 is a votes of Dhandiha Gram Panchayat. Both Gram Panchayats are under the Koilwar Block, District Bhojpur. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 7 filed nominations for the post of Mukhiya of the Kulharia Gram Panchayat. The petitioner filed objection to the nomination filed by respondent No. 7 on the ground that he was not a voter of the Kulharia Gram Panchayat and therefore ineligible to file such nomination. The objection was rejected on 21.3.2007 by the Returning Officer. The elections took place and results were declared on 17.6.2006. Respondent No. 7 was elected as Mukhiya.

2. The issue for determination is, if a voter of one Gram Panchayat is eligible to contest for the post of Mukhiya from another Gram Panchayat under the same Block.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 4(xvi) of the Commissions direction dated 25.2.2006 at Annexure-1, in so far as it permitted the voter of one Gram Panchayat to contest for the post of Mukhiya from any other Gram Panchayat in the same Block as being contrary to Sec.135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 , (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat Act) read with Rule 41(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). To be a candidate for the post of Mukhiya from a Gram Panchayat it was mandatory to be a voter of the same Gram Panchayat. Reliance in this regard was also placed on Article 243C(2) of the Constitution. Reliance was then placed on an earlier direction of the Commission dated 3.2.2001 in clause 4(vi) to submit that the Commission itself had earlier directed that to be a candidate for the post of Mukhiya from a Gram Panchayat it was mandatory that he must be a voter of the same Gram Panchayat. He lastly relied upon an order by a Bench of this Court dated 8.3.2001 in CWJC No. 2695 of 2001 in support of his submissions.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 submitted that the petitioner had filed his objection to his nomination on the aforesaid ground. The same was rejected. The petitioner accepted the rejection and contested the election. Having lost, he now seeks to challenge the very rules of the game to which he found no objection earlier. By his conduct, he is estopped from doing so. Article 243-O(b) specifically provides that a challenge such as the present can only be laid out in an election petition. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable. Article 243(d) defines Panchayat as an Institution (by whatever name called) of self-Government constituted under Article 243B. Article 243B contemplates a Panchayat at the village, Intermediate and District levels. Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads were the three separate levels of the Panchayat. Sec.2(w) of the Panchayat Raj Act defines a Panchayat as an Institution of self-Government constituted under Article 243B of the Constitution. There was no illegality in the respondent no. 7 having filed his nomination for the post of Mukhiya of a Gram Panchayat when he was a voter of another Gram Panchayat under the same Block. Article 135 of the Panchayat Raj Act only required that a person whose name figured in the voters list of any Panchayat Constituency, unless otherwise disqualified, was qualified to be elected as a member/office bearer of the Panchayat. The word Panchayat had therefore to be construed in its generic sense under Article 243(d) of the Constitution read with Article 243B and 2(w) of the Act. The contentions raised herein do not appear to have been raised before the Court when the order dated 8.3.2001 in CWJC No. 2695 of 2001 was passed and therefore there was no occasion for the Court to apply its mind to the issues