JUDGMENT :

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

1. The present writ petition has been primarily filed seeking cancellation of membership of the private respondent No. 10 as a ward member and to declare the petitioner as the winning candidate. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry regarding illegalities committed by the respondent no. 10 as also for directing the respondents to lodge FIR against the respondents No. 7 and 10.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents State has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition in view of the result of the elections having already been declared long back on 29.5.2016, which is apparent from paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition and the petitioner having filed the present writ petition belatedly in the year 2021, when the tenure of the ward members are coming to an end.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record.

4. This Court finds that there being Bar under Articles 243-O(b) and 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India to interference by Courts in electoral matters and the appropriate remedy being taking recourse to filing of an election petition for the purposes of calling in question an election to any panchayat /municipality, the present writ petition is out rightly not maintainable since the election process is complete and the results have already been declared long back.

5. This Court would rely on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., 1978 (1) SCC 405, wherein it has been held that the sole remedy for an aggrieved party, if he wants to challenge any election, is filing of an election petition and the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is excluded and a writ petition in such cases would not be maintainable.

6. This Court would further rely on Section 138 of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006, which is reproduced herein-blow:

"138. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.-Not withstanding anything contained in this Act:

(a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India shall not be called in question in any Court.

(b) No election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under this Act."

7. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Bibha Devi & Anr. vs. State Election Commission (Panchayat) & Ors. 2017 (1) PLJR 225, paragraphs no. 78 to 81 whereof are reproduced herein-below:

"78. In the light of the principles enunciated in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, 1952 AIR (SC) 64, Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 (1) SCC 405, Anurag Narain Singh vs. State of U.P. 1996 (6) SCC 303, C. Subrahmanyam vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu, 1998 (8) SCC 703, Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, 2000 (8) SCC 216, P. Manjula vs. State of A.P. 2007 (15) SCC 766 and the decision of this court, in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2009 3 PLJR 933, we are clearly of the view that the mandate of Article 243-O of the Constitution is that extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court can only be invoked to facilitate and sub-serve the process of election and not to thwart or derail the process of election. In clear and unequivocal terms, the Constitution Bench, in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra), held that once the election process is complete, the result of election or election itself can be called in question only by way of an election petition and not by invoking High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

79. Upon a careful consideration of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006, and the