ORDER :---We are passing common order in both the petitions as common question is involved. 2. The elections to Gram Panchayat Sintala, Taluqa Mul, District Chandrapur, were to be held as per the election programme announced some-where in the early part of December 1998. The nominations were to be filed on 7-12-1998 followed by its scrutiny and thereafter holding of the election. The elections are to be held on 26-12-1998. Following the scrutiny in both the matters the nomination papers of respective petitioner were rejected on 12-12-1998. 3. So far as the reason for rejection is concerned, the Returning Officer held that the municipal dues relating to water bill charges have not been paid. 4. In both the petitions, it is a common ground of the respective petitioners that the aforesaid finding is baseless because the alleged bills were not served on the petitioners and if served no notice of demand was made. When the matter was circulated before us on 17-12-1998, we issued Notice with a view to enable the respondents to find out whether the petitioners in fact were defaulters in payment of municipal dues and so far as important aspect of notice is concerned, is there no acknowledgment to substantiate the claim of notice having been served. 4-A. Today, the learned A.G.P. Mr. Chawda, appearing for respondent No. 1, has very candidly said that till date no acknowledgment has been found as to the details of the bills and also other record is not yet available, prima facie, therefore, so far as the petition is concerned, the averment made in the petition is made out. Therefore, it would be a ground for admitting the matter and of course, for granting interim relief which would be the prime purpose of filing the petition. 5. However, as it happens in these cases one of the candidate contesting the election, i.e. Ambadas Dukru Chalakh, respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 3964/98, had also filed nomination paper and on account of impugned action of rejection of his nomination paper where there were two contestants, namely Pandurang Vithul Bhurse- the petitioner and said Ambadas respectively, the respondent No. 2 came to be elected unopposed. So far as that petition is concerned, there are no elections necessary and for all purposes the elections have concluded. So far as that petition is concerned, there are no elections necessary and for all purposes the elections have concluded. No doubt a formal notification of the elections having been concluded showing the names of respective elected candidates is yet to be gazetted. So far as respondent No. 2 of that petition is concerned, he has been duly informed by the Returning Officer that he has been elected unopposed. 6. In these backgrounds, if Writ Petition No. 3962/98 is taken into consideration, it being in respect of the same Gram Panchayat where we entertain one petition or other, the important question that is required to be gone is the implication of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Clause (b) thereof is more important. Therefore, the relevant portion is quoted : "243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters :--- (a) .......... (b) No election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the legislature of a State." One could have easily argued, though not so done, that the election would necessarily mean the election in accordance with rules. No doubt, it would include the process which ends with the actual voting. That process would include filing of nomination, scrutiny thereof and acceptance or rejection, as the case may be. If the word election is to be understood to mean the election as per rules, it would automatically imply that scrutiny and acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, shall also be in accordance with the rules. 7. The challenge to the action is that the very ground for rejection is not in accordance with rules because unless it is established before the Returning Officer that the petitioner had the knowledge of dues and was called upon to pay the same and yet he has defaulted, the non payment could not have been held against him and, therefore, the rejection could not have been done. 8. 8. Precisely dealing with this matter, the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad has expressed an opinion that once there is a bar to petitions under Article 226 pertaining to election matter as contemplated by the Articles of Constitution of India, the relevant Article in that matter, being 43-ZG(b), the word election would also include rejection or acceptance of nomination paper and, therefore, could not be a subject matter of writ matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judges (the Bench comprising of N.P. Chapalgaonker and V.R. Datar, JJ.) while delivering the judgment in the case of (Farook Ali Khan and others v. Maharashtra State Election Commission and others)1, 1998(2) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)565 have clearly held that the acceptance or rejection would also include in the concept evolved by Article 243-ZG(b) and hence the petition would not lie. The Bench also referred to various decisions reported in (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti)2, 1995 Suppl. (2) S.C.C. 305, (N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency)3, A.I.R 1952 S.C. 64, (Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P.)4, 1997(1) Mh.L.J. (S.C.)132 and also relied upon (Smt. Sk. Khasim Bee v. The State Election Commissioner)5, A.I.R. 1996 A.P. 324 and (C.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa)6, 1995(5) S.C.C. 96 . The last has been distinguished as per paragraphs 10 and 11. 9. If one looks at the Article quoted above as also Article 243-ZG they are identically worded except the word panchayat and the word used Municipality used in Article 243-ZG. They are definitely pari materia. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commisioner, A.P.)7, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1595 has referred to Article 243-O and Article 329(b) of Constitution of India and treated them as pari materia. The question before the Supreme Court was election of Gram Panchayat of Nalgonda District of Andhra Pradesh State, which has already been concluded. One more decision which may be noted here, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1512, (State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti others)8. Again Article 243(g) and other related articles were involved and at page 1528 onwards with regard to the question of delimitation with reference to other related Articles of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have clearly held that the High Court was wrong in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226. Again Article 243(g) and other related articles were involved and at page 1528 onwards with regard to the question of delimitation with reference to other related Articles of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have clearly held that the High Court was wrong in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226. For ready reference, the relevant portion is quoted below : "What is more objectionable in the approach of the High Court is that although Clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seals to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone in to the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O in place in Article 327 and sections 2(kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in place of section 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the Court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given. Even this challenge could not have been entertained after the notification for holding the elections was issued. The High Court not only entertained the challenge but has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances although the challenge was made after the notification for the election was issued on 31st August 1994." There is an unreported decision of another Bench of this Court delivered by the Division Bench (comprising of Justice B.N. Srikrishna and Justice S.P. Kulkarni) at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 641/97 on 1-4-1998. It was a matter between (Raju Vitthalrao Boche v. State of Maharashtra)9, and as many as other 21 respondents. 11. It was a matter between (Raju Vitthalrao Boche v. State of Maharashtra)9, and as many as other 21 respondents. 11. Referring to various judgments and quoting the relevant provisions and the Articles of Constitution of India with regard the panchayat elections and Zilla Parishad, the learned Judges have clearly opined that they will not interfere with the matter following the doctrine of self restraint. In fact, they have used the words "Hands Off" in paragraph 10 on Article 243-O as espounded by Supreme Court in Boddula case. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one more decision of the Supreme Court which ought to have been considered is that of (L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India)10, 1997(2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.)198, where holding that right of the citizens of the country as given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the basic feature of the Constitution and therefore, could not be taken away by any act of the parliament including the amendment to the Constitution. The relevant provision was struck down. The matter related to jurisdiction of High Courts and that of Supreme Court in relation to the matters that were entrusted to the administrative Tribunals. 12. In our opinion, in the instant case, this position is not at all required to be considered. Moreover, the learned judges of Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 641/97 have taken into consideration that very judgment in the course of discussion at paragraph 7, internal page 11 of the copy of the judgment taken from the Court's record. 13. Before us is a simple petition, no doubt, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid factual ground of nomination having been wrongly rejected. 14. Taking into consideration the weightage of judicial pronouncements as also the views expressed by the two cognate Benches of this very Court, one at Aurangabad and the other at Nagpur, we hold that the filing of nomination paper, scrutiny and rejection or acceptance will be part of election process and therefore following the "Hands Off" doctrine, as done by this Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 641/97, we are inclined to reject the petition. Petition rejected at admission stage. Interim relief, if any vacated. Petition dismissed. -----