ORDER S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the order dated 17.8.1998 (Annexure P-4) of the respondent no. 6, the Returning Officer, by which respondent no. 7 Choubelal Patel has been declared as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Karhaiya, District Panna and for a direction to hold fresh election. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that this petition is not maintainable in view of the specific bar created by Article 243-0(B) of the Constitution of India. It provides that 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 Legislature of a State. Similar provision has been made in Article 121 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Section 122 of this Adhiniyam provides that an election under this Act shall be called in question only by an election petition. This statutory provision is a sequel to the Constitutional requirement. The election petition in case of Gram Panchayat lies to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner has not availed of the remedy of saved the election petition. In Khumano Bai Vs. State of M.P. 1995 M.P.L.J. 67 after a detailed discussion it has been held by this Court that a writ petition challenging the election of the Gram Panchayat is not maintainable. The election can be challenged by presenting an election petition only. There is similar provision under article 243-ZG for challenging the election to the Municipalities. The Supreme Court has held in Anugrah Narain Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (1) M.P.L.J. 45 that no election to a municipality can be questioned except by an election petition. 3. During the course of the arguments it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 11.12.1996 (Annexure P-1) was passed by the Returning Officer staying the election on the instructions of the Sub Divisional Officer, Panna and therefore, he could not hear the election petition. This order shows that the election was stayed because of the stay order passed by the Commissioner, Sagar and it was communicated to the Returning officer (Tehsildar) by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This order shows that the election was stayed because of the stay order passed by the Commissioner, Sagar and it was communicated to the Returning officer (Tehsildar) by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It cannot be said even remotely that by transmitting the message of the Commissioner to the Tehsildar the Sub-Divisional Officer was biased against or in favour of any candidate. This ground has not been set up in the present petition to surmount the hurdle of the Constitutional bar under Article 243-0(b). 4. The preliminary objection is allowed. It is held that the present petition is not maintainable. The appropriate remedy was the election petition. The present petition is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 29.10.1998 is vacated. Petition dismissed