JUDGMENT This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for writs/orders/direction declaring the election of the Katwa Parliamentary constituency to be null and void, for commanding the respondents not to give effect and/ or further effect to the declared election of the returned candidate and for quashing/cancelling/rescinding the said election. 2. Article 329 of the Constitution clearly provides that :– "Notwithstanding any thing in this Constitution, 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 any law made by the appropriate legislature." With this Article staring at the face and the gloss put thereon by the Supreme Court in (1) N. P. Ponnuswami, AIR 1952 SC 64 and a series of later decisions following the same, I have not the slightest doubt that this petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained. 3. Mr. Dutta Mazumder, appearing for the petitioner has urged that it is now the settled law that where fundamental right is at stake, disputed question of facts may no longer remain a “no entry area” for the Supreme Court or even for the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. This may be true and I also do not suggest that in a suitable case this Court cannot enter into questioned of facts. It is also true that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 being a creature of the Constitution itself, no ordinary Parliamentary of State Legislation can take away that jurisdiction. In other words, if the bar is created by any other ordinary legislation, it could have been argued that such a bar to the jurisdiction of the courts cannot operate as a bar to the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under the Constitution. In other words, if the bar is created by any other ordinary legislation, it could have been argued that such a bar to the jurisdiction of the courts cannot operate as a bar to the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under the Constitution. But when the paramount law itself in Article 329 has taken away the jurisdiction of all Courts or Tribunals in matters related to election except such Court or Tribunal as may be authorized under the law made in pursuance of that Article, this question can no longer detain us and we have got to hold that even the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution stands abrogated by the provisions of Article 329 in respect of elections to Parliament and the State Legislature. 4. Mr. Dutta Mazumder has then urged that now that an election petition is to be tried by the High Court under the amended provisions of section 80A of the Representation of the Peoples’ Act, 1951, this petition under Article 226 should be treated as such an election petition and should be disposed of as such. I have my doubts whether I can do so because though under section 80A the Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court, such jurisdiction shall be exercised only by such a Judge of the High Court to whom the matter shall be assigned by the Chief Justice from time to time. No such assignment has been made to me in this respect and that being so, I do not think I can treat this petition under Article 226 as an election petition under section 80A, even if I otherwise could do so. 5. There would also be further difficulties to such a course. Even assuming argue do that this petition under Article 226 can be treated by me sitting in this jurisdiction as an election petition under section 80A as the Representation of the Peoples’ Act, 1951, section 86 of the said Act enjoins that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117. 6. Under section 82 of the Act, all the contesting candidates must be made parties but they have not been made parties in this petition. 6. Under section 82 of the Act, all the contesting candidates must be made parties but they have not been made parties in this petition. Under section 117 an election petition must be accompanied with a security deposit of Rs. 2,000/-; this petition is not so accompanied. That being so, this petition would have been liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86 of the Representation of the Peoples’ Act even as an election petition under that Act. 7. Be that as it may, as I have already pointed out at the outset, in view of the clear mandate in Article 329 of the Constitution, this petition challenging the parliamentary election and praying for its setting aside cannot be maintained. 8. The learned Advocate-General appearing for Respondent No.1 and also for some other respondents has seriously challenged the maintainability of this petition on the ground as discussed hereinabove ; as already indicated I have accepted his contention. 9. This petition accordingly stands rejected. 10. I, however, do not propose to make any order as to costs. Office is directed to give plain copies of this order to the parties.