Heard the parties and perused the records of the case.

Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Munsif, Barh in Election Petition Case No. 15 of 2016 as contained in Annexure 7 as also the letter 852 dated 24.06.2016 written by the Block Development Officer, Athmalgola as contained in Annexure 5, by which he communicated to the petitioner that the Munsif, Barh, District Patna, the Presiding Officer, has directed the Block Development Officer, Athmalgola vide letter dated 23.06.2016 as contained in Annexure 5/1 not to administer oath upon the declared winner, i.e., the petitioner, on the post of Mukhiya of Sabnima Gram Panchayat under Athmalagola Block.

The election petitioner has been impleaded as respondent no. 6, who has appeared through Vakalatnama and has been heard.

This matter is being heard and disposed of without issuing notice to the other private respondents in view of the fact that for the present dispute, as to whether such injunction order could have been passed or not is in between the election petition and the winning candidate, i.e., the writ petitioner. Other private respondents, who have contested the election, have neither filed any election petition challenging the election nor have they filed any petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Code”), however, they have rightly been impleaded as defendants/opposite parties in the election petition for the reason that the election petitioner not only seeks relief regarding setting aside the election concerned but has also sought declaration as elected Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat. In that view of the matter, though all of the other private respondents may be necessary parties to be heard in the election petition but in the present dispute their appearance would be of no relevance.

The facts which form bedrock of the writ petition stand narrated as under:-

Election of Gram Panchayat of Sabnima was held on 26.05.2016. The writ petitioner having obtained 1037 valid votes cast in the election was declared elected as Mukhiya of Sabnima Gram Panchayat and was granted certificate to that effect. It would not be out of context to mention here that, before declaration of result, the respondent no. 3, i.e., the Returning Officer-cum-Block Development Officer concerned issued letter no. 859 dated 27.06.2016, as contained in Annexure 3, addressed to the petitioner that none of the candidates had filed any application for recounting of votes of any booth. Annexure 4 is a letter dated 17.06.2016 issued by the Returning Officer-cum-Block Development Officer concerned inviting the petitioner to participate in the meeting for election of Up Mukhiya/Up Sarpanch/Pramukh/Up Pramukh etc. However, suddenly, on 24.06.2016, a letter was issued vide Annexure 5, informing the petitioner that though a notice under Form 24 for the purpose of administering oath on 27.06.2016 was issued earlier but in view of the direction of the Munsif, Barh for maintaining status quo and not administering oath till further order, such meeting for administering oath would not be held. Then it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Election Petition No. 15 of 2016 was filed by the respondent no. 6 under section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Rule 106 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Rules”) for setting aside the election of the writ petitioner and further for declaring her as the elected winning candidate. From the entire order-sheet, which has been appended as Annexure 7, it appears that the election petition was filed on 14.06.2016 and the Serishtedar was directed to submit its report on 18.06.2016. It further shows that on 18.06.2016 the order has been passed that the election petitioner has filed attendance and, since court-fee has