2. The writ petition was filed by one Smt. Ruma Raj, respondent No. 6 in the present appeal on 11.5.2017 for quashing the order dated 8.5.2017 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar in Case No. 24 of 2017. The State Election Commissioner in purported exercise of power of superintendence under Rule 92 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007 rejected the nomination paper of the writ petitioner for election on the post of Ward Councilor of Ward No. 32 in the District of Munger. Consequently, the Returning Officer issued certificate of election in favour of respondent No. 6 as after rejection of the nomination of the writ petitioner the respondent no. 6 was the only candidate in the election.

3. The Writ Court after hearing the parties has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the State Election Commissioner dated 8.5.2017and all consequential orders including the declaration of election and issuance of certificate to the respondent No. 6 and thereafter issued direction to hold election accepting the nomination of the writ petitioner.

4. Mr. Abhoy Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Bibha Devi & Anr. Vs. The State Election Commission (Panchayat) & Ors.: 2017(1) PLJR 225 submitted that the Writ Court committed error of jurisdiction in deciding the writ application ignoring the constitutional inhibition under Article 243 ZG of the Constitution of India and heavily placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in Bibha Devi’s case (supra) wherein the Division Bench on consideration of the various judgments of Apex Court on the point held out that after commencement of the election process, election petition alone is the remedy and judicial review under Article 226 is impermissible.

5. Mr. Singh has submitted that on 19.04.2017 notification was issued for election of Councilors of Nagar Nigam Munger and 28.04.2017 was the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination paper. The appellant filed the objection before the Returning Officer that there is suppression of material fact in the nomination paper submitted by Smt Ruma Raj, respondent No.6 who has not disclosed her assets in her declaration in the nomination paper. However the Returning Officer did not consider the objection of the appellant and allotted symbol despite objection and thereafter the appellant approached the State Election Commissioner against the inaction on the part of the Returning Officer in not considering the objection against the nomination of the writ petitioner. According to senior counsel the State Election Commissioner exercised power of superintendence under the scheme of Article 243 ZA of the Constitution and after hearing the parties rejected the nomination of the writ petitioner vide order dated 8.5.2017 and thereafter the Returning Officer declared the appellant as elected being the only candidate with valid nomination in the election.

6. Shri Singh referring to the constitutional provision under Article 243 ZG submitted that once rightly or wrongly the Returning Officer issued certificate of election of the appellant, the Writ Court was precluded from exercising jurisdiction in view of the non obstante clause under Article 243 ZG which creates complete bar to interference by Court in election matter. For ready reference Article 243 ZG is reproduced hereinbelow :—

“243-ZG. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.—(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such