JUDGMENT K.S. Verma, J. - The petitioner claims to be a citizen of India residing in Lucknow and also claim to be associated with a large number of social and political organizations. The respondents 2 to 26 were elected - to the U.P. Legislative Assembly and are functioning as members of the Legislative Assembly by participating in the proceedings of the State Legislature. From amongst the respondents 2 to 26 Sri Ammar Rizvi. Smt. Swarup Kumari Bakshi, Ram Singh Sainik and Sri Praveen Kumar are Ministers. Sri Ammar Rizvi and Smt. Swarup Kumari Bakshi are Cabinet Ministers while Sri Ram Singh Sainik and Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma are State Ministers in the U.P. Cabinet. The said respondents are either ministers in the Uttar Pradesh Government by virtue of being members of the Legislative Assembly or members of the Legislative Council drawing monthly salary or remuneration and allowance attached to the office held by them respectively. The aforesaid respondents are either Principals of Degree Colleges, run under the U.P. Universities Act or Principals or Teachers of Intermediate Colleges run under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or teachers of the Junior Basic or Senior Basic Schools. The said respondents have been drawing their salary from the Public Exchequer as Principals or Teachers under the various statutory provisions and Government orders issued by the State Government from time to time. The salary payable to the said respondents is payable to them by the State Government in pursuance of S. 10 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971) (hereinafter referred to as Payment of Salaries Act). Since the said respondents are receiving pay under the said Act they are governed by the Payment of Salaries Act. Under S. 10 of the Payment of Salaries Act the State Government is liable for payment of salary to teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after 31st Mar. 1971. The salaries of the respondents who are Principals of Degree Colleges are payable under S. 60(E) of the State Universities Act, 1973 as amended by the U.. P. Education Laws Amendment Act, 1975 inasmuch as the Degree Colleges to which they are attached are getting maintenance grant from the State of Uttar Pradesh. 1971. The salaries of the respondents who are Principals of Degree Colleges are payable under S. 60(E) of the State Universities Act, 1973 as amended by the U.. P. Education Laws Amendment Act, 1975 inasmuch as the Degree Colleges to which they are attached are getting maintenance grant from the State of Uttar Pradesh. S. 60(E) of the State Universities Act, 1973 provides that the State Government shall be liable for payment of salary of teachers and employees of every college due in respect of any period after 31st Mar. 1975. The salaries to the respondents who are Headmasters or teachers of Junior Basic Schools or Senior Basic Schools indicated in para 2 of the petition are payable under the provisions of U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1978 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1978). The said schools also receive grants in the name of maintenance grant. S. 10 of the said Act also provides that the State Government shall be liable for payment of salary to teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after the appointed day. A perusal of the enactments referred to above would indicate that the entire expenditure on payment of salary, benefits, allowances and bonus etc. are borne by the State Government. A perusal of para 17 of the writ petition would indicate the Government order under which the dearness allowance, bonus and other emoluments are paid to the respondents 2 to 26 out of Public Exchequer. The case of the petitioner is that the said respondents hold an office of profit under the State Government and are disqualified for being elected as a member of the State Legislature. In support of this contention reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on Article 191 of the Constitution. The relevant provision is quoted as follows "191. Disqualifications for membership -(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative assembly or Legislative Council of a State (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder". The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that under Article 191(a) of the Constitutional respondents, 2 to 26 who hold an office of profit under the State Government are disqualified from being elected to the State Legislature and the respondents who are holding an office of profit, under the State Government are disqualified from having a valid candidature. It is further submitted by the petitioner that since the State Government exercises total control over the educational institutions in which respondents 2 to 26 are or had been Principals or Teachers or Headmasters and the salary is paid to them out of Public Exchequer they would be deemed to be persons holding an office of profit under Article 191(a) of the Constitution. 2. In support of this submission petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 1982 Reported in 1984 All LJ 203 Bihari Lal Dobrary v. Roshan Lal Dobrary, a copy of the said decision is Annexure-17 to the writ petition. In the said case the Hon'ble the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that an Assistant Teacher employed in a Basic Primary School holds an office of profit and was not qualified to be elected as a member of the State Legislative Assembly. The test applied by the Supreme Court was that the teachers of the High Schools and Intermediate Colleges recognised under the Intermediate Education Act. 1971 and receiving maintenance grant are holding office of profit within the meaning of Article 191(a) of the Constitution. It was further submitted that the respondents 2 to 26 by participating in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly have incurred liability under Article 193 of the Constitution as such they are liable to pay a penalty for each day for participating in, that proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly. 3. On the facts stated above, the l petitioner contends that respondents 2 to 26 are illegally discharging the duties of Ministers and Members of Legislative Assembly inasmuch as they are disqualified under Article 191(a) of the Constitution, and that the Supreme Count has declared that the teachers who draw salary from the State Government are disqualified from being elected as members of the State Legislature. On the said grounds a writ of Quo warranto has been prayed for requiring respondents 2 to 26 to show cause under what authority they are holding the office of Ministers and Members of State Legislature. It has also been prayed that an order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding respondent No. 1 State of Uttar Pradesh to annul all actions taken and orders passed by the respondents concerned while they were usurpers of the office of Ministers and Members of legislative Assembly despite disqualifications mentioned in Article 191(a) of the Constitution. It has also been prayed that a direction be issued to respondent No. I to take steps for filling up vacancies in the State Legislature caused by the disqualifications of respondents 2 to 26. It has also been prayed that respondents 2 to 26 be directed to pay back the salary and allowances drawn by them from the State Exchequer till the date of the petition and respondent 1 be directed to stop further payment of any salary and allowances to respondents 2 to 26. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Article 191(a) of the Constitution and by reference to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court (Annexure-17) to the writ petition, it was submitted that respondents 2 to 26 are usurpers of the office held by the them and a writ of Quo warranto be issued requiring them to show by what authority they are holding the offices held by them. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents 2 to 26 were elected from time to time to the State Legislature. 5. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be appropriate to refer to certain provisions of the Constitution dealing with Elections. Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-president held that under this Constitution, shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in the Constitution as the election Commission). Art 327 and 328 provide that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to elections to either House Of Parliament of either House of the Legislature of the State, including the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies. These articles also provide that the Parliament may from time to time make provision with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with the elections to Houses or either Houses of the State Legislature. The Parliament in exercise of its power under Article 327 and 328 of the Constitution passed the Representation of People Act, 1951, framed rules' relating to the conduct of elections to the Parliament and to the State Legislature. The said Act also provides for the elections to the Office of the President and Vice-President held under this Constitution. Article 329 deals with the bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. The said Article in so far as it is relevant is reproduced below : "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution (a) ................................. (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under law made by the appropriate Legislature". The above provision clearly indicates that the elections referred to in the said provision were not open to challenge except by an election petition to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for"by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. "the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder deal with the filing of election petition and their decision. 6. Section of the Representation of the People Act provides that no election can be challenged except by election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of law. S. 80-A provides that the Court having jurisdiction to try an election, petition shall be the High Court. S. 81 of the said Act provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sections 100 and 101 to the High Court by any candidate to such election or any elector. S. 81 of the said Act provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sections 100 and 101 to the High Court by any candidate to such election or any elector. It would thus be clear that an election petition can be presented only by a candidate to the election or by an elector. The Representation of the People Act is a statute framed by the Parliament in exercise of powers under Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution. Under the Representation of the People Act only persons, referred to in S. 81 of the said Act, namely, the candidates to such election or an elector can challenge the election, no other person is permitted to challenge election to the Parliament or any House of the State Legislature. From the facts brought out in the petition it is clear that respondents 2 to 26 were elected to the State Legislature in the year, 1980. Their elections were either not challenged or if any election was challenged the challenge failed. Respondents 2 to 26 are holding offices- since the last elections without their election having been successfully challenged by any candidate or by an elector. The effect of Article 329(b) of the Constitution is that the election of respondents 2 to 26 to the State Legislature is not open to challenge and if such a challenge has not been made by means of an election petition the election cannot be challenged in any Court. Article 329 opens as follows: "Notwithstanding anything certained in this Constitution". This provision indicates that the election of respondents 2 to 26 can be challenged only by an election petition and in no other manner. The words" Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution", clearly indicate the intention of the Constitution makers that election to any House or the Legislature cannot be challenged even by a petition under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution. Article 329(b) of the Constitution also provides that an election can be challenged only by a candidate to the election or by an elector. In this view of the matter, the election of respondents 2 to 26 of the State Legislature cannot be challenged in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 329(b) of the Constitution also provides that an election can be challenged only by a candidate to the election or by an elector. In this view of the matter, the election of respondents 2 to 26 of the State Legislature cannot be challenged in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. the election of respondents 2 to 26 is also not open to challenge at the instance of any party other than a candidate to the election or an elector and that too by an election petition. In the instant case the petitioner cannot challenge the election of respondents 2 to 26 on the ground that such a challenge cannot be made under Article 226 of the Constitution and also on account of the fact that the election could be challenged only by a candidate or by an elector and that too by menas of an election petition. In view of the legal position that has emerged the present petition is not maintainable on account of the bar created by Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The petitioner cannot challenge the election as he is neither a candidate nor an elector. The challenge could only be made by a candidate or an elector and that too my an election petition under the Representation of the People Act. In view of the bar created by Article 329(b) of the Constitution this petition is not maintainable. In this connection reference may be made to N.P. Ponnusami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64 . In this case declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 9, 10 and 11 represents the entire law on the subject which is quoted as follows: "9. The question now arises whether the law of elections in this country contemplates that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are not going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the high Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded). and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of People Act, which as I shall point out later, seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. It seems to me that under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can he used as a ground to call the election in question. Article 329(b) was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds-which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be urged. I think it follows by necessary implication from the language of the provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329(bl and in setting up special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the Article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution could not have contemplated. one of them being that conflicting views may he expressed by the High Courts at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal, which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. 10. I think that a brief examination of the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. 1951 will show that the construction I have suggested is the correct one. 10. I think that a brief examination of the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. 1951 will show that the construction I have suggested is the correct one. Broadly speaking, before an election machinery can be brought into operation, there are three requisites which are required to be attended to, namely, (1) there should be a set of laws and rules making provisions with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections, and it should be decided as to how these laws and rules are to be made, (2) there should be an executive charged with the duty of securing the due conduct of elections, and (3) there should be a judicial tribunal to deal with the dispute arising out of or in connection with elections. Articles 327 and 328 deal with the first of these requisites, Article 324 with the second and Article 329 with the third requisite. The other two articles in Part XV, viz., Articles 325 and 326 deal with two matters of principle to which the Constitution framers have attached much importance. They are : (1) prohibition against discrimination in the preparation of, or eligibility for inclusion in, the electoral roll, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them, and (2) adult suffrage. Part XV of the Constitution is really a code in itself providing the entire ground-work for enacting appropriate laws and setting up suitable machinery for the conduct of elections. 11. The Representation of the People Act. 1951, which was passed by Parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution, makes detailed provision in regard to all matters and all stages connected with elections to the various legislatures in this country. That Act is divided into 11 pArticles and it is interesting to see the wide variety of subjects they deal with. Part II deals with "the qualifications and disqualifications for membership." Part III deals with the notification of General Elections. Part IV provides for the administrative machinery for the conduct of elections, and Part V makes provisions for the actual conduct of elections and deals with such matters as presentation of nomination papers, requirements of a valid nomination, scrutiny of nominations. etc., and procedure of polling and counting of votes. Part VI deals with disputes regarding elections and provides for the manner of presentation of election petitions. etc., and procedure of polling and counting of votes. Part VI deals with disputes regarding elections and provides for the manner of presentation of election petitions. the Constitution of election tribunals and the trial of election petitions. Part VII outlines the various corrupt and illegal practices which may affect the elections, and electoral offences. Obviously, the Act is a self-contained enactment so far as elections are concerned, which means that whenever we have to ascertain the true position in regard to any matter connected with elections, we have only to look at the Act and the rules made thereunder. The provisions of the Act which are material to the present discussion are Sections 80. 100. 105 and 170, and the provisions of Chap. II of part IV dealing with the form of election petitions. their contents and the reliefs which may be sought in them. S. 80. which is drafted in almost the same language as Article 320(b). provides that "no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part". S. 100. as we have already seen, provides of the grounds on which an election may be called in question. one of which is the improper rejection of a nomination paper. S. 105 says that "every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shall be final and conclusive". S. 170 provides that "No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the Returning Officer or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with an election." These are the main provisions regarding election matters being judicially dealt with, and it should be noted that there is no provision anywhere to the effect that anything connected with elections can be questioned at an intermediate stage". 7. A close scrutiny of the said paragraphs would indicate that once the election process has started the bar contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution applies and any dispute relating to elections can be decided only by election tribunal constituted under Representation of the People Act. The principle enunciated in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 S.C. 64 (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 S.C. 233 . The principle enunciated in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 S.C. 64 (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 S.C. 233 . Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. New Delhi, AIR 1978 S.C. 851 . A perusal of the said decision would indicate that the Election Commissioner had cancelled the poll in regard to a particular constituency. That decision of the Election Commission. was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed and an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court. Krishna lyer. J. while analysing the scope of Article 3291b) observed as follows : "Let us break down the prohibitory provision into its components. The sole remedy for an aggrieved party, if he wants to challenge any election. is an election petition. And this exclusion of all other remedies includes constitutional remedies like Article 226-because of the non obstante clause". 8. The view taken by Krishna Iyer. J. had the approval of Beg, C.J., P. N. Bhagwati J. Goswami and Shinghal JJ. agreeing with other Judges in regard to interpretation of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, observed as follows : The above being the legal position. Article 329(6) rules out the maintainability of the writ application. Article 329(b) provides that "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution .........................no election to either house of Parliament ....................shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature." It is undisputed that an election can be challenged only under the provisions of the Act. Indeed S. 80 of the Act provides that "No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act. We find that all the substantial reliefs which the appellants seek in the writ application. including the declaration of the election to be void and the declaration of appellant No. Ito be duly elected can be claimed in the election petition. It will he within t power of the High Court. as the election Court, to give all appropriate reliefs to complete justice between the parties. including the declaration of the election to be void and the declaration of appellant No. Ito be duly elected can be claimed in the election petition. It will he within t power of the High Court. as the election Court, to give all appropriate reliefs to complete justice between the parties. doing so it will be open to the High Court to pass any ancillary or consequential order to enable it to grant the necessary relief provided under the Act. The Writ application is, therefore, barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and the High Court rightly dismissed it on that ground". It would be clear from a perusal of the entire decision that although all the Judges were of the view that Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars the entertainment of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in regard to election matters but the majority view represented by Krishna lyer. J, chose to lay down the correct law on other aspects of the case relating to the merits of the case dealt with by the High Court. This they did with a view to avoid any further error in the decision of the case when the matter is ultimately decided by the election tribunal. Goswami and Shinghal, JJ. on the other hand refrained from expressing opinion of the merits but this much is clear that all the judges were of the view that petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable in any matter relating to elections. It appears from the decision that before the High Court a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition in regard to election dispute but the High Court in spite of the objections proceeded to decide other aspects of the case. Krishna lyer, J. commented adversely upon this manner of approach by the High Court and observed. as follows: "Indeed, we should have expected the High Court to have considered the basic jurisdictional issue first, and not last as it did. and avoided sallying forth into a discussion and decision on the merits, self -contradicting its own holding that it had no jurisdiction even to entertain the petition . as follows: "Indeed, we should have expected the High Court to have considered the basic jurisdictional issue first, and not last as it did. and avoided sallying forth into a discussion and decision on the merits, self -contradicting its own holding that it had no jurisdiction even to entertain the petition . ..................This is hardly a convincing alibi for the extensive per incurium examination of facts and law gratuitously made by the Division Bench of the High Court, thereby generating apprehensions in the appellant's mind that not only is his petition not maintainable but be has been damned by damaging findings on the merits. We made it unmistakably plain that the election Court hearing the dispute on the same subject under S. 98 of the R. P. Act, 1951 shall not be moved by expressions of opinion on the merits made by the Delhi High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition. An obiter binds none, not even the author, and obliteration of findings rendered in supererogation must alley the appellant's apprehensions. This Court is in a better position than the High Court. being competent, under certain circumstances. to declare the law by virtue of its position under Article 141. But, absent such authority or duty, the High Court should have abstained from its generosity. Lest there should be any confusion about possible slants inferred from our synoptic statements, we clarify that nothing projected in this judgment is intended to be an expression of our opinion. even indirectly." The above quotation indicates that in a case where an election dispute was to be challenged on the ground of jurisdiction by reference to Article 329(h) of the Constitution. the Court should not express its opinion on merits. Any expression of opinion by the Hon'hle Supreme Court on merits appears to have been done to furnish guidelines to the Tribunal at the time of decision on merits. However, this much is clear that the Supreme Court held that bar created by Article 329(b). bars the remedy by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution also. In our opinion the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. New Delhi, AIR 197K SC 851 supra is of no assistance to the petitioner. 9. On the grounds indicated above. bars the remedy by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution also. In our opinion the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. New Delhi, AIR 197K SC 851 supra is of no assistance to the petitioner. 9. On the grounds indicated above. we are of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner as observed above. an election can be challenged only by means of an election petition and that too by a candidate to the election or an elector. The petitioner does not come in any one of the categories. It is. thus, obvious that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the election of respondents 2 to 26 in it petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of election matters in view of Article 329th) of Constitution. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed great reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court contained in Annexure-17 to the Writ petition. A perusal of the said decision would indicate that the question of disqualification in regard to election of a teacher to whom Basic Education Act applied arose in an election petition. The High Court while deciding the election petition held that the petitioner who is a teacher is not disqualified from being chosen as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court and held that teachers governed by U.P. Basic Education Act. 1972 held an office of profit and were disqualified from seeking election to the State Legislature. under Article 191tl)ta) of the Constitution. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the election of respondents 2 to 26 was not challenged by means of an election petition but by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above the said respondents are usurpers of office because they are holding office of profit as held by the Supreme Court. In our opinion, it is not possible for the petitioner to derive any assistance from the said decision. The Supreme Court by rendering the decision contained in Annexure 17 to the writ petition simply declared the law on the point. In our opinion, it is not possible for the petitioner to derive any assistance from the said decision. The Supreme Court by rendering the decision contained in Annexure 17 to the writ petition simply declared the law on the point. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the Courts within the territory of India. The words used "Law declared by the Supreme Court" means that the legal position indicated by the Supreme Court would always be treated as the law on the subject. The purpose of the Courts is not to enact law but to declare the law. The bar created by Article 191(l)(a) of the Constitution as indicated by the Supreme Court in Bihari Lal Dobray's case, 1984 All LJ 203 could have been pleaded by challenging the election of respondents 2 to 26 to the State Legislature by filing an election petition. Since the' election of aforesaid respondents was not challenged by an election petition the election of the said respondents viz. 2 to 26 became final and unassailable. 11. It was next pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at any rate from the date, of the decision of the Supreme Court. namely. 25-1I-1983 the respondents are usurpers of office and therefore, a writ of Quo warranto may be issued. In the first instance it cannot be said that respondents 2 to 26 are usurpers of office. They. were elected to the State Legislature in an election contest. The election was not challenged by means of an election petition and the same became final. If by virtue of Article 329(b) of the Constitution the election is not open to challenge. respondents 2 to 26 have acquired indefeasible right to be members of the legislature and they cannot be said to be usurpers of the office. They are holding office by virtue of being elected to the State Legislature. The election was not challenged in the manner provided for by the Constitution and if the election remains unchallenged respondents 2 to 26 cannot be said to be usurpers of office. 12. In Writ Petition No. 1215 of 1982.a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a member held that if the election of elected members was not challenged in the manner provided for by the Constitution. 12. In Writ Petition No. 1215 of 1982.a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a member held that if the election of elected members was not challenged in the manner provided for by the Constitution. the persons elected cannot be said to be usurpers of office as they are holding their office by virtue of an election held under the Representation of the People Act. In that writ petition the petitioner challenged that Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi respondent 8 and Sri Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh respondent 9 are usurpers of office which they were occupying. They were elected members of the Lok Sabha and the State Legislature and by virtue of election they held office of Prima Minister and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh respectively. Since their election remains unchallenged this Court observed that they cannot be declared usurpers of office. After recording this finding the petition was dismissed on account of bar created by Article 3291b1 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1984 Raj. 29 . A perusal of the said decision indicates that an election dispute arising out of Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act would he available to the issue of writ of Quo warranto in appropriate cases. In our opinion this decision has no application to the facts of the case. In regard to the election to the Parliament and the State Legislature Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars entertainment of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such a bar could not apple to an election under Rajasthan Panchavat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. In this view of the matter no assistance can be derived by the petitioner from this decision. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Patel Kanchanbhai Mangalbhai v. Maneklal Manganlal Gandhi, AIR 1966 Guj 19 . This case is under the Gujarat Panchayats Act and to such a case the bar created by Article 329(b) of the Constitution could not apply. The petitioner cannot derive assistance from this decision either. Moti Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1966 Him. Pra. 25 is also not applicable as this is a case which deals with Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. The petitioner cannot derive assistance from this decision either. Moti Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1966 Him. Pra. 25 is also not applicable as this is a case which deals with Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. The bar created by Article 329(b) of the Constitution appears to have no application to a territory governed by Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. For the proper governance of union territories this Act. was enforced and therefore. the Legislature of the said territory was to be constituted under the Act. That Act did not have the provision analogous to Article 329(b) of the Constitution. We are, accordingly, of the view that this case has no application to the facts of the case which is governed by Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo, AIR 1954 SC 202 . By reference to this decision it was submitted that powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of, the Constitution cannot be taken away by the Legislature. It may be noted that Article 329 of the Constitution as it stands at the moment was introduced by the Constitution (Thirty Ninth Amendment) Act. 1975 which came into force on 10th Aug. 1975. The amended provision inserted the words "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" in Article 329. The effect of this Constitutional amendment is that powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge the election of a person to either House of the Parliament or to either House of the Legislature. 14. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. After the judgment was pronounced learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In our opinion no substantial question of law is involved in this writ petition. The question involved is one of application of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, w refuge the certificate prayed for.