I.A. Ansari, J.

Issue, involved in the present appeals, is: Upon the completion of an election to Gram Panchayat and after declaration of the results of such election, whether, in the light of Article 243-O, read with Section 138 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, any challenge by a contesting candidate, attributing illegality to the manner of counting of votes, can be entertained by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

2. The issue, indicated above, has been thrown up in these appeals, which have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 12.08.2016, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 9918 of 2016, which came to be registered as a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of Smt. Usha Devi, a candidate, who unsuccessfully contested the Panchayat Election, 2016, for the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kansi, challenging the result of the said election, impleading therein the returned candidate, namely, Bibha Devi, who was respondent No. 6 in the writ petition aforementioned, and no other contesting candidates of the said election.

3. The said Bibha Devi, being aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 12.08.2016, aforementioned, whereby the writ application stands allowed, has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1639 of 2016. Another Letters Patent Appeal, bearing L.P.A. No. 1643 of 2016, has been preferred by another unsuccessful candidate of the said election, namely, Akila Khatoon, who was not arrayed as party-respondent, in the writ application aforementioned, questioning the legality of the judgment and order aforementioned passed by the learned single Judge. This is the reason why both these appeals have been heard together, with the consent of the parties, and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. Before we advert to the submissions advanced, on behalf of the appellant, for assailing the order under appeal, relevant facts need to be taken note of.

(i) Pursuant to the notification, issued under Section 124 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed thereunder, by the State Election Commission, the process of filling up of the various posts under the Act by holding election was set in motion and, thus, the process of election for the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Kansi, District Darbhanga, which is the subject matter of the present case, commenced.

(ii) The Block Development Officer, Darbhanga Sadar, was notified as the Returning Officer and the date of election was fixed on 26.05.2016.

(iii) The writ petitioner, both the appellants herein and one more candidate filed their nominations and, upon scrutiny, since their nominations were found valid and none of the candidates, nominated validly, withdrew their nomination, all the said four candidates were accordingly allotted election symbols on 19.04.2016.

(iv) The State Election Commission established 16 booths for holding the election, in question, which was peacefully held on 26.05.2016.

(v) The counting of the booth-wise votes cast was held on 02.06.2016 and booth-wise result sheet, in Form 20(part-1) read with Rule 76 (2) of the Rules as also a compilation of final result sheet, in Form 20 (part-2) under Rule 76(2) of the Rules, were prepared and, accordingly, the result of the election was prepared, in Form 21 under Rule 81(1) of the Rules, and, in terms thereof, declared that respondent No.6 (i.e., appellant of LPA No. 1639, namely, Bibha Devi) was the returned candidate.

(vi) It is the claim of the writ petitioner, in her writ petition, that she had obtained the attested copies of the result-sheets, prepared by the Counting Supervisors in Form-20, Part 1, with regard to all the 16 booths and, on taking into account total booth-wise votes secured by her, it became apparent to her that even though she had obta