Judgment 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the entire election of Dandari Gram Panchayat in the district of Begusarai has been challenged. Respondents 1 to 10 were elected to various offices of the Gram Panchayat on 28-5-1978. 2. The only point, which has been urged by Mr. K.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is that Rule 31 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules 1959. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and any election held on the basis of the polling stations selected under Rule 31 must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been stated that for four wards of the Panchayat only two booths were selected and no opportunity was given to the voters and the candidates to file any objection in the matter of selection of booths. 3. Rule 31 of the Rules reads as under :- "(1) The Election Officer, and not an officer to whom he delegates his powers under Cl.(g) of Rule 2 shall select one or more polling stations, as may be considered by him, for each Panchayat and shall obtain the approval of the District Magistrate thereon. Once approved, the polling stations shall not be changed. The Election Officer shall publish the list of the polling station on his own notice board as also on that of the Panchayat at least two weeks before the date of actual poll. (2) The Election Officer shall, in writing appoint a Presiding Officer and such number of Polling Officers to assist the Presiding Offices as he thinks necessary." According to this, the Subdivisional Officer, who is the Election Officer under the Rules and not his delegate, is required to select one or more polling stations as may be considered necessary by him. The list is thereafter sent to the District Magistrate for approval. After it is approved by the District Magistrate it becomes final and is finally published on the notice board of the Election Officer and the Panchayat. The contention of Mr. Verma is that in a democratic State wherever right of a voter is affected, he should be given an opportunity of raising an objection. After it is approved by the District Magistrate it becomes final and is finally published on the notice board of the Election Officer and the Panchayat. The contention of Mr. Verma is that in a democratic State wherever right of a voter is affected, he should be given an opportunity of raising an objection. In support of his argument learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Umakant Singh V/s. Binda Choudhury, 1965 0 BLJR 344. In that case the question was whether Rule 3 of the Bihar Panchayat Samities and Zilla Parishad (Elections, Co-options and Election Petitions) Rules, 1963, was constitutionally valid. According to the Rules, the whole and sole basis of a person being elector for the purposes of the said election was the list of Secretaries obtained by the Returning Officer from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. No procedure was prescribed for filing of any objection before any authority for the purpose of challenging the correctness of the list supplied by the Assistant Registrar, in respect of which various kinds of disputes could and did crop up. The disputes could be whether a particular Co-operative Society and its Secretary were included in the list or not; whether the person as the Secretary of the particular Co-operative Society was the Secretary or not or whether somebody else was its Secretary. No manner and forum were prescribed for the raising of any kind of dispute, which was bound to creep in regard to the list of electors. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer V/s. Radhey Shyam Dani, AIR 1957 SC 304 it was argued that R.3 of the Rules was defective and invalid. In the case of the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer (Supra) the Supreme Court held that it was the essence of the elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Unless that was done the obligation cast upon the authorities was not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls were invalid. 4 I do not understand how these cases are applicable to the present case. Unless that was done the obligation cast upon the authorities was not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls were invalid. 4 I do not understand how these cases are applicable to the present case. A person residing in an area of a Gram Panchayat has surely right to become an elector. The rules provide that if his name is not included is the electoral roll he may file objection before the prescribed authorities but after becoming a voter there is no such right that the elector must have a particular place or a booth of his choice. A right to vote and a right to vote at a particular place are two different things. The former is a substantive and statutory right whereas the latter is a question of convenience and it does not confer a right on a voter. It is true that convenience of the voters must be taken into consideration by the authorities empowered to select the polling booths. For that purpose, I think, sufficient safeguards have been given in Rule 31 itself. It is not a delegate Election Offices but the Subdivisional Officer himself who is required to select the polling booths. The matter does not become final there. That list goes for scrutiny before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate is required to approve that list. When the District Magistrate is required to approve the that submitted by the Sub-divisional Officer, it implies that the District Magistrate will apply his mind and also may take into consideration any objection of suggestion placed before him. The function of the District Magistrate is not in the nature of Judicial on quasi judicial function but before approving the list he has to apply his mind. This, is my opinion, is sufficient safeguard so far as the convenience of the voters of a Gram Panchayat are concerned, but, as I have said above, it cannot be the electors right to vote at a particular booth of his choice. His right is to become an elector and to exercise his franchise. If in the mattes of exercising the franchise there is any obstruction from any quarter that will again become a question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ application. His right is to become an elector and to exercise his franchise. If in the mattes of exercising the franchise there is any obstruction from any quarter that will again become a question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ application. That question will have to be pleaded and proved in appropriate proceeding to show that the result of the election has been materially affected on account of such obstruction or interference. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the facts of this case and the questions raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner I do not find any merit in this application. This application, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-.