JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav & S. K. Singh, JJ. - By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as Public Interest Litigation P.I.L. for short) on behalf of Sapru Jayakar Motilal C.R. Das Institute of Legal Aid, and Sri Brinda Prasad Roy etc., the relief sought is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 the Union of India, the respondent no. 2 the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, respondent no. 3 the Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Bihar, respondent no. 4 the Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, respondent no. 5, Chief Election Commissioner, Union of India, respondent no. 6 State Election Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna to hold elections to elect persons, at village, Block and District level of the Panchayats in the State of Bihar, at the earliest. This election was to be held in accordance with the provisions of• Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (Act No. 19 of 1993), (compendiously 'the Act') enacted by the State legislature in the light of the Constitution (Seventy Third) Amendment Act, 1992, adding Part IX of the Constitution and adding Articles 243 to 243-O. Pursuant to this Constitutional Amendment a three tier Panchayat in every State has become imperative. 2. Factual matrix of the case has been indicated in the petition as to how the State of Bihar was avoiding to hold elections for the last about 18 (Eighteen) years. It appears startling as to how the State Government could run the administration effectively and properly according to law, in the absence of legally elected representatives of the Panchayat at different level. The case was listed for hearing on a number of dates. We directed the respondents to file Counter-Affidavit justifying their conduct for not holding the Panchayat elections for the past eighteen years. It may be specified that primary relief claimed was that election for the Panchayats in the State may be held along with Assembly Elections in February/March, 1995. The Assembly Elections were held but not Panchayat elections. Now it appears too late in the day to accept any explanation on behalf of the State Election Commissioner to justify postponing of these elections. 3. On 20.9.1995 we directed the learned Advocate General and Mr. The Assembly Elections were held but not Panchayat elections. Now it appears too late in the day to accept any explanation on behalf of the State Election Commissioner to justify postponing of these elections. 3. On 20.9.1995 we directed the learned Advocate General and Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy the learned Additional Advocate General of the State to give a positive date for holding elections with details of the programme and in case no positive date was given the matter shall be decided on merits. In compliance of that direction a detailed supplementary Counter-Affidavit has been filed indicating that in view of the provisions of the Act and Rules 26 and 27 and other relevant rules of Bihar Panchayat Rules, 1995 the polling station are to be selected and finalised and the voters list shall be prepared and published by the District Election Officer (Panchayat) with the approval of the State Election Commission and the list of the polling stations would be finally published by 18th December, 1995. The State Election Commissioner has assured that all the feasible steps would be taken so as to hold the Panchayat elections between 17th January to 23rd January, 1996 and counting of votes and declaration of result would be completed by 31st January, 1996. But in our opinion these dates appear to have been fixed quite leisurely. After Assembly election in case respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 would have been vigilant the Panchayat election would have been held much earlier. Other details, however, have also been given in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. 4. Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, however, entertained grave doubts about the contents of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit and he asserted that State machinery and the Director of Panchayat and State Election Commission would not hold elections on the dates indicated in the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit. He insisted that his submissions be decided on merits. His main submission was that Members and Mukhias etc. of the old Panchayats were elected about eighteen years ago and they completed five years terms much earlier, hence there was no justification for granting them any extended period of one year or so after five years initial term. He submitted that Article 243E and Article 243N of the Constitution have to be read conjointly and section 157 (f) of the Act was unconstitutional. He submitted that Article 243E and Article 243N of the Constitution have to be read conjointly and section 157 (f) of the Act was unconstitutional. Our country being secular, socialist democratic republic, basic structure of the Constitution would be jeopardised in case no elections for Panchayat are held. Mr. Ojha doubted that there was no definition of elector or voter. The Act itself was not enforced. The areas of the Panchayats have not been finalised. 5. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 2, 3, 4 and Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, the learned Additional Advocate General appeared for respondent no. 6, whereas Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma appeared for Union of India and refuted the submissions of Mr. Ojha and urged that the doubts entertained by the learned counsel for the petitioners are baseless. 6. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions on either side. In our opinion a few words about the concept of democracy and election in the country appear to be imperative. In a democracy the Government may be Union Government, or of a State or even the Panchayats are representatives of the people, elected directly from the people on the basis of adult franchise. Right to participate is an essential element of democracy inseparable from such other attributes of democracy as consent, accountability, majority rule and equality etc. Participation is essential and by this the consent is granted in a democracy and the representatives elected are made accountable to the people who elect them. In view of Article 326 of the Constitution of India one who is a citizen of India and is major on the relevant date and is not otherwise disqualified is entitled to be registered as voter and shall elect representatives of Parliament, State Legislature and the voters elect representatives and Mukhias or Pradhans of the Panchayats at all relevant level. In other words adult sufferage is the basis to elect representatives, who shall govern them in one form or the other. 7. In Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851) it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J. that the concept of democracy presupposes the representation of the people in Parliament in State Assembly (and also in Panchyats established in every state). Every voter is equal. 7. In Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851) it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J. that the concept of democracy presupposes the representation of the people in Parliament in State Assembly (and also in Panchyats established in every state). Every voter is equal. With simile of Sir Winston Churchill with a common simple voter it is as follows:- "At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy, Sir Winston Churchill is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper (i.e. bailor paper) no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point." In case the elections for Panchayats are not held how can Representatives be elected at different level and how would they be accountable to the people and also to the State Government. As to who shall be voters, it appears 8tate Government was conscious about its responsibilities and has passed Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1995, adding section 137A to the Act as follows:- "137A. Electors of Panchayat.-All such persons who are enrolled as electors in the electoral rolls or that part of the rolls of the State Legislative Assembly Constituency for the time being in force which is concerned with the territorial constituency of any Gram Panchayat shell be the electors for concerned Panchayat Elections". 8. By the provision it has been made specific that all such persons who are enrolled as electors in the electoral rolls or that part of the rolls of the State Legislative Assembly Constituency for the time being in force which is concerned with the territorial constituency of any Gram Panchayat shall be the electors for the concerned Panchayat Elections. In this view of the matter the doubt of Mr. Ojha is repelled as specific provision has been made. We hope the other details of the elections shall be followed. By the Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Bihar Act 14 of 1995) several necessary announcement have been made. In Sections 13 and 15 of the principal Act amendments have been made. New Sections 32A, 33A and 137A etc. have been added. The principal Panchayat Raj Act has been enforced from the date of its publication in the State Gazette. By the Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Bihar Act 14 of 1995) several necessary announcement have been made. In Sections 13 and 15 of the principal Act amendments have been made. New Sections 32A, 33A and 137A etc. have been added. The principal Panchayat Raj Act has been enforced from the date of its publication in the State Gazette. Mr Ojha's submissions about section 157 (f) of the Act being unconstitutional, and other points are left open to be decided in some other appropriate case, as the main relief of holding the Panchayat election is being granted. 9. In our considered opinion it is the Constitutional obligation of the State Government and other respondents to hold panchayat elections in the State in accordance with the schedule and details of the election given in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. By issuing a writ of mandamus we direct the respondents particularly the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna represented by Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Additional Advocate General and also the Chief Election Commissioner, Union of India and other respondents represented by learned Advocate General to hold the Panchayat Elections in this State positively by 31st January 1996 as given in the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit. In case the Panchayat elections could be completed by 31st December 1995 A.D. we would appreciate the sincerity of purpose and the Constitutional obligations in view of the Constitution (Seventy Third) Amendment Act, 1992. We accordingly direct the respondents to hold and complete the entire election including declaration of results positively by 31st January, 1996. 10. But before parting with the case we record our appreciation to Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and also to the learned Advocate General, the learned Additional Advocate General and to Mr. Sharma for having rendered valuable service to the Court. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition succeeds substantially and is allowed with no order as to costs.