Judgment 1. The question that has been raised by the petitioners of this writ application is as to whether a polling station once approved for holding the election of any Gram Panchayat by the District Magistrate can be altered by him. 2. Earlier this very question was raised by one Bir Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 6, a contesting candidate for the office of the Mukhia, in C.W.J.C. No. 1405 of 1978, but when it was referred to a Division Bench, the Bench by its order dated 6.12.1978 took the view that objection, if any, in this regard might be taken by the voters and not by the candidate inasmuch as he failed to show that on account of the change, any injury much less any substantial injury had been suffered by him. In that view of the matter, the writ application was dismissed and it is, thereafter, that the present writ application was filed by the six petitioners being voters of the Gram Panchayat in question, namely, Ajampur Khorampur Gram Panchayat. 3. Undisputedly, according to the earlier election programme as per the notification, the polling for electing different office-bearers was to take place on 26.05.1978 at the various polling stations as approved by the District Magistrate by his order dated 5.05.1978. A petition was, however, filed for changing the booth on behalf of the weaker section of the community, namely, the Harijans and the voters of the minority community, and by his order dated 12.05.1978 (Annexure-1) the prayer was allowed and the booth of Ward No. 2, namely, Madhya Vidyalaya, Ajampur (Purvi Bhag) was shifted to Madhya Vidyalaya, Bhatauliya. This change led to the filing of the writ application by respondent No. 6 in this Court. On the dismissal of his writ application, a fresh election programme was published because the period of six months had elapsed in the meantime, fixing, however Madhya Vidyalaya, Ajampur as one of the polling booths. Objections appear to have again been taken by that set of people for keeping the polling station in the Madhya Vidyalaya aforesaid on the ground that respondent No. 6, one of the contesting candidates, being influential and turbulent man, would not allow the voters of Ward No. 2 to exercise their right of franchise. Objections appear to have again been taken by that set of people for keeping the polling station in the Madhya Vidyalaya aforesaid on the ground that respondent No. 6, one of the contesting candidates, being influential and turbulent man, would not allow the voters of Ward No. 2 to exercise their right of franchise. This led to an enquiry by the Executive Magistrate and the District Magistrate, Vaishali (respondent No. 2) passed the impugned order contained in Annexure-8 by which he made the change for the second time by shifting the booth from the Bhatauliya Middle School to Ajampur Middle School. 4. The point that has been raised by Mr. Shyam Sunder Sinha Shyam is based on the reading of Rule 31 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, which reads as follows: "(1) The Election Officer, and not an officer to whom he delegates his powers under Clause (g) of Rule 2 shall select one or more polling stations, as may be considered necessary by him, for each Panchayat and shall obtain the approval of the District Magistrate thereof. 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 Officer as he thinks necessary." He argues that the provisions contained in Rule 31 do not permit any change in the places of the polling stations once they were approved by the District Magistrate. 5. Learned Government Pleader No. 4 contended that the finality attached to the selection of a polling station was binding only upon the Election Officer and not on the District Magistrate who was the approving authority and that if such a strict interpretation is given to this rule, then if any such factor or circumstance appeared after the grant of the approval and the election had to take place accordingly, in that event it would make the rule unworkable. I find force in this contention inasmuch as according to the well established rule of interpretation, unless the context otherwise prohibits, only such construction should be given which would advance the purpose for which the rule was framed. I find force in this contention inasmuch as according to the well established rule of interpretation, unless the context otherwise prohibits, only such construction should be given which would advance the purpose for which the rule was framed. In my view, taking such a view would not result in any conflict with the scheme of Rule 31 as indicated above. I would accordingly hold that the District Magistrate was fully entitled to make a change and shift the polling station from one place to another. 6. In this connection I may also mention that Rule 31 does not prescribe any guideline for selecting a polling station or any provision for entertaining any objection etc. to the same, if once it is selected. It may well be that the Election Officer recommending the names of various places for fixing the polling stations to the District Magistrate might be unaware of the various local factors or other difficulties which may come to light subsequently and those may appear to be so apparent that allowing the polling to take place on those polling stations would frustrate the very election in a democratic, smooth and proper manner. 7. For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in this application and, accordingly, dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs.