Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. All the above three matters relate to the election for the post of Mukhiya of Mahudar Gram Panchayat of Kowakole Block in the district of Nawada (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat) and, as such, as agreed, all the matters, including the contempt matters, and the intervention application have been heard for final disposal together at the stage of admission itself. 2. In order to appreciate the questions Involved, few relevant facts are that besides others, the petitioner as well as the intervenor-petitioner Sahdeo Yadav were also the candidates for the post of Mukhiya for the election in the Panchayat which took place on 11.4.2001. According to the petitioner, on 21.5.2001 sealed ballot boxes were opened and votes cast were arranged in bundles, but thereafter suddenly the counting was stopped. The petitioner approached the authorities concerned, including the State Election Commission by filing representation for proceeding to the counting but having failed to get redressal of his said grievance, filed the writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8699 of 2001, in this Court seeking direction to the respondents, including the State Election Commissioner, the Returning Officer, the Election Officer and the District Panchayat Officer to count votes without any delay. It was alleged that although election of the Panchayat was over, but counting was arbitrarily stayed without any rhyme or reason. The Commission appeared in the said writ petition and the Counsel appearing for them submitted that counting is normally stayed because of some complaints received and the Election Commission may on consideration of the facts and circumstances decide for repolling. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, as was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 20th July, 2001 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) with a direction to the Election Commission to complete the process of election and declare the final result of the Panchayat in question by the middle of November, 2001. It was further directed that anyone aggrieved by such result will be at liberty to question its validity before the Election Tribunal, in accordance with law. The said direction was not complied. 3. It was further directed that anyone aggrieved by such result will be at liberty to question its validity before the Election Tribunal, in accordance with law. The said direction was not complied. 3. Later, M.J.C. No. 2948 of 2001 was filed on behalf of the Commission with a prayer to extend the time for completion of election process from the middle of November, 2001 to the end of January, 2002. The Court, considering the fact that the said writ petition was disposed of on agreement and the order passed therein had not been complied and, further, that the M.J.C. had been filed after expiry of the period for compliance of the order, held that after the contempt is committed, petition for extension of time is not maintainable. 4. In the meanwhile, on 19.11.2001 the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 2949 of 2001 in this Court for initiating contempt proceeding against the contemnor-opposite parties for disobeying the aforementioned order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8699 of 2001 and after disposal of M.J.C. No. 2948 of 2001 filed by the Commission wherein this Court found that after the contempt is committed petition for extension of time is not maintainable, the petitioner filed another M.J.C. No. 3220 of 2001 for initiating contempt proceeding against the Election Commission and other officials for flouting the order of this Court by not declaring the result. Meanwhile, when the petitioner learnt that a notice had been affixed on the notice board in which fresh election programme had been mentioned and schedule date for re-election was 20.1.2001, he filed the present writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 542 of 2002, in this Court seeking direction to the respondents to count the votes polled on 11.4.2001 for the post of Mukhiya and not to hold fresh election on 20.1.2002. The writ petition was placed before the Bench assigned with the subject and his Lordship on consideration of the facts and finding that the Election Commission is not above law nor can ignore the mandatory direction issued by the High Court stayed the election process for the concerned Panchayat scheduled to be held on 20.1.2002 and directed for personal appearance along with affidavit and show cause by the person who had decided for re-poll as to why he be not punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, subsequently, by order dated 18.2.2002, his Lordship considering that the earlier orders were passed by this Court directed for placing the writ petition for hearing before this Court after taking orders from Hon ble the Chief Justice and, accordingly, the matter was placed before this Court on 26.2.2002. Since then the matter had to be adjourned on several occasions mostly on the request of the learned counsel for the Commission. 5. The entire controversy has arisen at the instance of the intervenor Sahdeo Yadav who, according to the petitioner, during the election campaign made his canvassing on the symbol "Bunglow" but when he felt that he had not secured good votes, then he raised an objection that his election symbol was wrongly printed as "Bunglow" though as per the general instruction issued by the Election Commission his symbol should have been "Balti" in the ballot paper. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to paragraph 17 of the earlier writ petition submitted that there was similar grievance raised about the mistake in printing of election symbol in the ballot paper with respect to election of Bishanpur Gram Panchayat of Khaira Block in the district of Jamui, yet the result of election was declared but, in the present case, the counting was arbitrarily stayed even after opening of sealed ballot boxes and arranging of ballot papers in bundles. 7. On 4.4.2002 learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission had produced two files, bearing file no. 7/5 of 2001 and 6 of 2001, in which the communication of Form-9 by the Returning Officer to the District Election Officer as required under rule 43 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was not available. Learned counsel for the Election Commission prayed for time to produce the said communication which, according to him, might be lying in the file maintained by the District Magistrate. 8. Learned counsel for the Election Commission prayed for time to produce the said communication which, according to him, might be lying in the file maintained by the District Magistrate. 8. However, when despite the order dated 4.4.2002, the Election Commission failed to produce the said communication in Form-9 and a submission on their behalf was made that in the present case, B.D.O., Kowakole was the Returning Officer and he had personally taken the file to the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer and, thus, the communication in Form-9 as required under rule 43 of the Rules was not available on record, this Court, vide order dated 9.4.2002, on the joint prayer, fixed 11.4.2002 for final disposal of the writ petition along with the contempt matters. Meanwhile, the Court, prima facie, finding something fishy about the genuineness of Form-9, photo copy of which had later been brought on record as Annexure X/2 along with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission from which it appeared that a copy of the same was also sent to Saraswati Press, Calcutta for printing of ballot papers, called for the original sent to Sarswati Press from the Press, vide order dated 15.4.2002. 9. In view of the allegation with respect to the election of Bishanpur Gram Panchayat, Khaira Block of Jamui district, this Court directed the Election Commission to produce the record with respect to the said election. On 23rd May, 2002, when the matters were finally heard, the records with respect to the election of Bishanpur Gram Panchayat was produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission. The said records contained the carbon copy of the list of candidates prepared in Form-9 sent to the Election Commission, vide letter no. 293 dated 4.3.2001, and its original copy which as claimed was retained in the office of the Returning Officer. Bare perusal of the same showed that the original, which had been retained, was different from the carbon copy sent to the Election Commission and there was insertion made in the record of the Returning Officer later. Out of the records, the said documents which are in two bunches containing list of candidates in Form-9 with respect to the Panchayats, including Bishanpur Gram Panchayat, were kept in sealed cover for consideration. 10. Out of the records, the said documents which are in two bunches containing list of candidates in Form-9 with respect to the Panchayats, including Bishanpur Gram Panchayat, were kept in sealed cover for consideration. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behaif of the Election Commission and the Secretary of the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna (respondent nos. 1 to 3), it is stated that with the issue of notification by the Governor of Bihar the poll process in the State commenced with effect from 3.2.2001 and that as per the provisions of the Rules, the nomination papers filed by the candidates were scrutinised and the candidates whose nomination papers were found valid after scrutiny were given the option for withdrawal of their candidatures and after such withdrawal, the list of validly nominated candidate for contesting the election was prepared in Form-9. According to the said respondents, Form-9 contains the names of valid candidates along with the election symbols allotted to them by the Returning Officer in the manner prescribed by the Commission. It is further pleaded that the ballot papers for a particular post are printed exactly as per Form-9 and any ballot paper which does not conform to the shape and design approved by the Commission as also the names and respective symbols of the validly nominated candidates as shown in Form-9 is legally not valid. It is further pleaded that after the election process was completed by the end of May, 2001, the Commission made a tentative assessment during the month of June and it was noticed that approximately 3000 posts of three tier Panchayat Institutions, namely, Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad were vacant and poll/re-poll for all these vacant posts were to be conducted on account of various reasons mentioned therein, including printing of ballot papers which were not as per Form-9. It is further stated that in many cases like the one in respect of the writ petitioner, the ballot papers were printed with correct names of the candidate but with the election symbol different from the one allotted to a particular candidate as indicated in Form-9. It is also pleaded that wrong printing of ballot papers involving the writ petitioner is not the solitary one as there are many such cases in other districts as well. It is also pleaded that wrong printing of ballot papers involving the writ petitioner is not the solitary one as there are many such cases in other districts as well. Therefore, according to the said respondents, such defective ballot papers vitiate the voting process and, therefore, election conducted on the basis of defective ballot papers cannot be free and fair. It is also pleaded that since Form 9 is a legally valid document, any ballot paper which does not conform to Form-9 in respect of the names of the candidates and their respective symbols is legally invalid and consequently election conducted with such defective ballot papers is automatically treated as cancelled and, therefore, the question of counting of such votes cast with defective ballot papers did not arise as election with defective ballot papers is non est in the eye of law. According to the said respondents, since the ballot paper was defective and not legally valid, votes cast with such defective ballot papers are also ab initio void and, therefore, re-poll with valid ballot paper printed afresh was inescapable for the Gram Panchayat, Mahodar. It is, however, pleaded that the alleged mistake in printing of ballot paper was on account of volume of work involved in printing the ballot paper and that when the volume of work was so much large it was not physically possible to ensure hundred per cent accuracy in printing the ballot papers as per Form-9. It is admitted that during the polling process in the month of May, 2001, when such mistakes of wrong printing of ballot papers were detected, many Returning Officers immediately got the ballot papers re-printed and in such cases re-poll was held in the beginning of May, 2001 and election process was completed along with others for which election took place in six phases in April, 2001. It is also admitted that the case of defective ballot papers with respect to the election of Panchayat in question could not be detected at the time of voting and such mistake was discovered later and mostly at the time of counting due to rush of work and their inexperience in conducting Panchayat election which took place after a gap of 23 years. 11. 11. According to the Commission, a report was called for from the District Election Officer on 30.6.2001 to explain as to why repoIl for the posts was not held after reprinting of ballot papers afresh as per Form-9 when adequate time was available. It is stated that the direction for holding repoll after re-printing of ballot papers correctly was already contained in letter of the Commission dated 30.6.2001, vide Annexure B issued more than 20 days before disposal of the writ petition on 20th July, 2001. Further, it is stated that the Commission issued the general guidelines vide its letter dated 19.11.2001 (Annexure C of the show cause on behalf of respondent no. 2) addressed to all the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officers, including the D.M.-cum-D.E.O., Nawada prescribing the criteria on which fresh poll/repoll would be held on 20th January, 2002 and among the criteria prescribed by the Commission one relates to defective ballot paper and the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer was to locate all the vacant posts under the criteria prescribed by the Commission for holding fresh poll/ repoll on 20th January, 2002 i.e., the date notified by the Governor of Bihar for about 3000 vacant posts throughout Bihar, including the post of Mukhiya for which the writ petitioner was a candidate. 12. In the show cause filed on behalf of the Election Commissioner (respondent no. 2) the stand taken earlier in the counter affidavit has been reiterated. However, in paragraph 12 it is stated that since the order dated 20th July, 2001 passed in C.W.J.C. 8699 of 2001 did not at all aim at completing the election process by counting of the votes as the same was also not legally permissible, the Commissioner was under the bona fide belief in the very face of the order itself, as also in the facts and circumstances explained. It is stated that the Commission at no stretch of imagination can be subjected to disobedience of the said order by going in for re-poll which is inescapable and the only legal step available to the Commission if the process of election for the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mahodar is to be completed. 13. It is stated that the Commission at no stretch of imagination can be subjected to disobedience of the said order by going in for re-poll which is inescapable and the only legal step available to the Commission if the process of election for the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mahodar is to be completed. 13. In the intervention application filed on behalf of Sahdeo Yadav, Jamaluddin and Bikram Mahto of village Mahulia Tand, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Kauwakol, District Nawada, it is claimed that they are necessary parties since on their complaint the votes polled on 11.4.2001 were not counted and fresh polling was scheduled to be held on 20th January, 2002. It is claimed that they were also candidates for the post of Mukhiya of the Panchayat in question. In the intervention application it is stated that after completion of all the process of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal etc., the Block Returning Officer allotted the symbol to all the candidates in accordance with rule 43 (1) of the Rules and prepared the list of candidates in Form-9 along with the respective symbols which was informed to the candidates and was pasted on the notice board of the Block and the Returning Officer sent its copy to the District Returning Officer after allotting symbols under rule 44 of the Rules. After allotment of symbols, all the candidates, including the intervenor-petitioner started their campaign and informed the voters of their respective election symbols. It is alleged that the intervenor-petitioner Sahdeo Yadav printed his election publicity materials like pamphlets and posters and everywhere his election symbol was shown as "Balti" which was highly popular amongst the villagers and there was every likelihood that the intervenor-petitioner would win the election due to which all other contestants were in deep trouble. Photo copies of the pamphlet and poster of the intervenor-petitioner Sahdeo Yadav have been annexed as Annexures 1, 1/A and 1/B. It is alleged that the Block Returning Officer, Kowakole convened a meeting of candidates and specimen copy of the ballot paper was shown to the candidates in which the intervenor- petitioner Sahdeo Yadav was again shown with his symbol as "Balti". A photo copy of the alleged specimen ballot paper has been annexed as Annexure 2. A photo copy of the alleged specimen ballot paper has been annexed as Annexure 2. It is also alleged that the petitioner Bhola Prasad who is a big businessman having all the connection in Kolkata and other important cities, managed the local election office and by way of manipulation, the election symbol of the intervenor petitioner Sahdeo Yadav was changed from "Balti" to "Bunglow" in the ballot paper which was not in the knowledge of the intervenor petitioner or anyone till the polling started. On 11.4.2001 when the polling started the voters were surprised to see that the symbol of "Balti" was not printed in the ballot paper and in protest they completely boycotted the polling at Booth no. 192, 193 and 194. In other booths, the supporters of Sahdeo Yadav boycotted the poll and most of them did not vote. It is alleged that there was complete anarchy on the date of polling and as such most of the voters did not exercise their franchise in free and fair manner and that the writ petitioner who had conspired tried to take benefit of the situation. It is claimed that Sahdeo Yadav immediately filed a petition before the Block Returning Officer and requested to cancel the polling since his election symbol had been changed from "Balti" to "Bunglow (Jhopri)", which was received by the Block Returning Officer himself who informed the State Election Commission, District Returning Officer and Officer-in-Charge of Kowakole Police Station. On 16.4.2001 Sahdeo Yadav claims to have filed representation before the State Election Commission, vide Annexure 4, requesting him to cancel the election of Mukhiya of the Panchayat due to serious error in printing of election symbol in the ballot paper. Intervenor in paragraph 20 has admitted about counting and announcement of result of the election of Khaira Block where some change of symbol occurred in the printing of ballot paper. 14. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the above, it is stated that the pamphlets produced today by Sahdeo Yadav is manipulated, forged and misleading as it is also evident from the fact that such printing shows that it is of Sahdeo Prasad Yadav and not of Sahdeo Yadav who was a candidate in the election for the post of Mukhiya. There is no candidate named as Sahdeo Prasad Yadav. There is no candidate named as Sahdeo Prasad Yadav. It is further asserted that the said facts proved that the candidate named as Sahdeo Yadav made his propaganda/advertisement showing his election symbol as "Bunglow" but much after the election held on 11.4.2001, he raised grievance that his election symbol was changed in the ballot paper when he felt that he had not secured good votes. The original pamphlet of Sahdeo Yadav showing his symbol as "Bunglow" has been brought on record by way of Annexure 1 along with the said supplementary affidavit. With respect to the statement about boycotting of election at three booths by the voters due to alleged change in the election symbol of Sahdeo Yadav, it is stated that the same is wrong and misleading as is also evident from the fact that if the voters would have turned up only then they could have been able to know about the alleged change of election symbol of Sahdeo Yadav. It is stated that the said three booths are under the commands of MCC and it is the area where due to explosion of "Barudi Surang" half a dozen international tourists were killed on the same day on the call of MCC the voters of those three booths boycotted the election as they have no faith in the democratic set up. Further, it is stated that if the votes of the said three booths would have gone in favour of Sahdeo Yadav even then the petitioner would have secured more votes than any of the contesting candidates. 15. In the show cause filed on behalf of the Election Commission in M.J.C. No. 3220 of 2001, the stand of the Election Commissioner is same that this Court simply rejected the petition for extension of time vide its order dated 6.12.2001 and has not passed any order or issued direction for violation of which he can be subjected to file show cause. It is stated that the direction of this Court in its order dated 20th July, 2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 3699 of 2001 to complete the election process for the post of Mukhiya has not been recalled or rescinded by this Court and, therefore, the direction to complete the election process is valid and lawful even today and, therefore, the election schedule to complete the election on 20th January, 2002 is in compliance with and is not in violation of the said order. With respect to the order dated 6.12.2001 passed by this Court in M.J.C. No. 2948 of 2001, it is stated that the ambit of the said order is restricted to the fact that the prayer of the election Commission for grant of extension of time was rejected and while rejecting the said prayer, this Court did not pass any further order or issue any direction for which opposite party no. 3 can be accountable. State Election Commissioner has reiterated that he has not violated any order or direction of this Court. 16. Further, in answer to the contempt it is stated that since there were about 3000 cases where re-poll was to be held, the Commission was of the view that it would not be administratively prudent and feasible to conduct re-poll in piecemeal manner and accordingly, the view of the Commission was that for all such cases where election was to be treated as cancelled because of various reasons as indicated above, repoll shall be conducted sometimes in November, 2001 after the rainy season was over as during the rainy season, it is not possible to mobilize men and materials in the interior areas due to poor accessibility. 17. I am surprised as to how such stand has been taken by the Election Commission despite the order in the earlier writ petition was passed by this Court on their agreeing to complete the process of election and to declare the final result of the Panchayat in question by the middle of November, 2001. 17. I am surprised as to how such stand has been taken by the Election Commission despite the order in the earlier writ petition was passed by this Court on their agreeing to complete the process of election and to declare the final result of the Panchayat in question by the middle of November, 2001. All such pleas taken in the counter affidavit, including the plea that the defective ballot papers could not be noticed by the Presiding Officer at the time of poll due to rush of work and their inexperience in conducting Panchayat election go to show that the State Election Commission has-completely failed to discharge the superintendence and control over the conduct of elections to the Panchayats vested in him under Article 243 K of the Constitution of India and now to cover up the gross lapses affecting the valuable rights of the citizens relating to exercise of their franchise to elect their representatives, which involved huge public money as well as of the individuals, besides causing unnecessary delay in the process of election, such pleas are taken. Moreover, the instant case is a glaring example where the Commission has shown complete disregard to the order passed by this Court by not completing the process of election and declaring the final result of the Panchayat in question by middle of November, 2001 and has tried to defend by taking the plea that it was not administratively prudent and feasible to conduct re-poll in piecemeal manner and notified for holding of fresh poll on 20th January, 2002 when it is admitted by the Election Commissioner, who appeared in person before this Court, that there is no separate decision/direction issued with respect to re-poll of the Panchayat in question since after the order dated 20th July, 2001 was passed in the earlier writ petition. 18. In the earlier writ petition it was submitted on behalf of the Commissioner that the counting is normally stayed because of some complaints received and the Commission may on consideration of the facts and circumstances decide for repolling. However, this Court on the agreed submission made by all the parties directed the Commission to complete the process of election and declare the final result of the Panchayat in question latest by the middle of November, 2001 obviously keeping in view all pros and cons, including various responsibilities of the Election Commission. However, this Court on the agreed submission made by all the parties directed the Commission to complete the process of election and declare the final result of the Panchayat in question latest by the middle of November, 2001 obviously keeping in view all pros and cons, including various responsibilities of the Election Commission. This Court further directed that any person aggrieved by declaration of such result will be at liberty to question its validity before the Election Tribunal in accordance with law. Thus, it is clear that this Court did not direct the Election Commission to go in for the re-poll or hold fresh election of the Panchayat in question, but, in fact, directed the Commission to complete the process and declare the final result by middle of November, 2001. Further, by the direction that any party aggrieved may question the validity of the result before the Election Tribunal in accordance with law, it is clear that this Court wanted the Election Commission to declare the final result and thus gave liberty to the aggrieved party to approach the Tribunal. This is also evident from the order dated 6.12.2001 passed in M.J.C. No. 2948 of 2001 filed by the Election Commission seeking extension of time whereby this Court taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances rejected the prayer for extension of time. 19. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court does not find any merit in the defence taken by the Commission that the counting of votes was not legally permissible and that the Commission by no stretch of imagination can be subjected to disobedience of the order by going in for re-poll which is inescapable and the only legal steps available to the Commission if the process of election is to complete for admittedly not complying with the direction of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition. In the case of Subodh Gopal vs. Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd., reported in AIR (38) 1951 Patna 266, it has been held that the party against whom an order of injunction is made cannot disregard the order on the ground that it is erroneous in any particular. Right or wrong, the injunction order binds him, and he diregards it at his peril. Ltd., reported in AIR (38) 1951 Patna 266, it has been held that the party against whom an order of injunction is made cannot disregard the order on the ground that it is erroneous in any particular. Right or wrong, the injunction order binds him, and he diregards it at his peril. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manmati Kuer vs. Ramgopal Singh, reported in AIR 1976 Patna 240 relying upon AIR 1961 S.C. 221 and (1978) 1 SCC 405 , held that if disobedience could go unchecked on such untenable plea it would result in orders of Court ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. 20. In the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 1233 , the Apex Court held that the directions issued by the Election Commission, though binding upon the Chief Electoral Officers, cannot be treated as if they are law, the violation of which could result in the invalidation of the election, either generally, or specifically in the case of an individual. The Supreme Court emphasised that there is no provision either in the Act of 1950 or the Act of 1951 which would justify the proposition that the directions given by the Election Commission have the force of law. According to the Apex Court, Election Laws are self-contained codes and one must look to them for identifying the rights and obligations of the parties, whether they are private citizens or public officials. In the absence of a provision to that effect, the Apex Court held that it would not be correct to equate with law, the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers. While considering the power of Election Commission, the Apex Court has said that "the Election Commission is, of course, entitled to act ex debito justitiae, in the sense that, it can take steps or direct that steps be taken over and above those which it is under an obligation to take under the law. It is, therefore, entitled to issue directions to the Chief Electoral Officer. Such directions are binding upon the latter but. It is, therefore, entitled to issue directions to the Chief Electoral Officer. Such directions are binding upon the latter but. their violation cannot create rights and obligations unknown to the Election Law.To take a simple example, if the Election Commission issues a directive to a Chief Electoral Officer to invite leaders of political parties for a meeting to consider their grievance pertaining to the electoral roll, the failure to hold such a meeting cannot be equated with the failure to comply with the provision of a law. Leaders of political parties who were asked to be invited by the Election Commission cannot challenge the process of election on the ground that the directive issued by the Election Commission was violated by the Chief Electoral Officer. The question is not whether the directions issued by the Election Commission have to be carried out by the Chief Electoral Officers and are binding upon them. The plain answer is that such directions ought to be carried out. The question is whether. the failure on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer to comply with the directions issued by the Election Commission furnishes any cause of action to any other person. like a voter or a candidate. to complain of it. We are of the opinion that the directions issued by the Election Commission. though binding upon the Chief Electoral Officers. cannot be treated as if they are law, the violation of which could result in the invalidation of the election. either generally. or specifically in the case of an individual." (underlining by me for emphasis) 21. In the instant case, the Election Commissioner has solely based its defence on Clause Ga of the general instruction issued by him on 30th April, 2001 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit and the show cause filed on his behalf). Clause Ga reads as follows : 22. Bare perusal of the said clause Ga shows that in the matter of misprinting of ballot papers not according to the approved Form-9, which is not detected during the poll, the Returning Officer is required to submit a report about it through the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat) to the Commission and further action is to be taken as per the direction of the Commission, which has also admittedly not been followed in the present case. This Court fails to appreciate as to how Clause Ga at all protects him for not complying with the direction of this Court given in the earlier writ petition more so when it is not the case of the Commission that a detailed report was received with respect to alleged misprinting of ballot papers to the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat) with respect to the Panchayat in question and the Election Commission on it issued any direction for taking further action. 23. Moreover, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (supra), the directions issued by the Election Commission may be binding upon the Chief Electora.1 Officer/Returning Officer but its violation cannot create rights and obligations unknown to the Election Law and does not furnish any cause of action to any other person, (ike a voter or a candidate to complain of it. The directions issued by the Election Commission, though binding upon the Chief Electoral Officer/Returning Officer, cannot be treated as if they are law, the violation of which could result in the invalidation of the election, either generally, or specifically in the case of an individual. 24. The above law laid down by the Apex Court also facilitate to conclude the election as early as possible according to the time schedule anq all controversial matters and all election disputes are to be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceeding may not be unduly retarded or protracted, as has been said by the Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Shivaji. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 277, while dealing with the question that the process of election to either House of Parliament or State legislature can only be challenged by filing election petition and not by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held that such question can be raised and election can be set aside under section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 only if the result is materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions. 25. The Apex Court held that such question can be raised and election can be set aside under section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 only if the result is materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions. 25. This Court, thus, does not find any merit in the stand of the Commission that any ballot paper, which does not conform to Form-9 in respect of the name of candidates and their respective symbols, is legally invalid and consequently election conducted with such defective ballot paper is automatically treated as cancelled and, therefore, the question of counting of such votes cast with all defective ballot papers does not arise as election with defective ballot papers is non-est in the eye of law and that since the ballot paper is defective and not legally valid, vote cast with such defective ballot papers is also ab initio void and, therefore, re-poll with valid ballot papers printed afresh was inescapable for the Gram Panchayat. 26. In view of serious controversy involved in the present case on the question as to whether the intervenor-petitioner Sahdeo Yadav contested the election and made canvassing on the election symbol "Bunglow" or "Balti" and on account of alleged misprinting of the symbol alloted to him in the ballot paper which does not conform to Form-9, as approved by the Election Commission, the action of the Election Commission in issuing fresh notification for holding of election without taking any decision even according to Clause Ga and complying with the rules of natural justice is arbitrary. According to the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , the Election Commission is not only to act bona fide but subject to rules of natural justice to be followed before proceeding with the re-poll. 27. However, in my opinion, such controversial questions could only be gone into in an election petition after declaration of result for the simple reason that it is a matter of evidence to show whether the result is materially affected by the noncompliance of such requirement and not the manner in which the Election Commission has acted in the present case. However, in my opinion, such controversial questions could only be gone into in an election petition after declaration of result for the simple reason that it is a matter of evidence to show whether the result is materially affected by the noncompliance of such requirement and not the manner in which the Election Commission has acted in the present case. This Court, thus, does not consider it proper to go into the above mentioned controversy and/or to consider the photo copy of the alleged Form-9 received from Sarswati Press as the said matters require detailed enquiry/evidence which can only be gone into in an election petition if filed by anyone aggrieved by the result, as per the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition. 28. It is really unfortunate that the Election Commission even without waiting for the order on the petition filed by it before this Court for extension of time proceeded to notify poll for holding of fresh election and that too in utter disregard of the direction of this Court given in the earlier writ case. According to the principle laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Shivaji (supra) when an election which cannot be set aside unless the result is materially affected by the non-compliance of the provision, this Court finds it difficult to hold that the Election Commission can exercise power to issue notification for holding fresh election for alleged non-compliance of his instruction relating to the provision regarding allotment of symbols after the poll has taken place and the sealed ballot boxes are opened and ballot papers are arranged in bundles. Such decision, in my opinion, is arbitrary, more so because of non-compliance of the rules of natural justice. 29. I would, therefore, hold that once the poll has already taken place, no authority has power to interfere with the completion of the election process by declaring the result except under rule 50 relating to countermanding of poll or as provided in rule 70 for adjournment of poll during the period of poll and rule 71 for adjournment of poll in emergent circumstance. Rest all other disputes can only be gone into in the election petition filed by the defeated candidate questioning the election of the winning candidate on the grounds mentioned in section 144 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which includes that the result of the election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected by improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void. Fresh election/re-poll involves huge expenditure of public money as well as of the candidates which must be prevented/avoided except in such cases where such action is mandatory under the provision of law, including the rules. 30. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission has contended that there are two aspects involved in the present matterone is of contempt and the other is with respect to the power of the Election Commission to initiate fresh process of election. He fairly accepted that there has been non-compliance of the order of this Court by not completing the process of election by the middle of November, 2001 but, according to him, in the absence of any wilful disobedience and the Commission having acted in bona fide understanding of the effect of the earlier order of this Court, has not committed contempt warranting any action against him and this Court may take lenient view of the matter. As regards the prayer made in the writ petition, he submitted that in view of the bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters provided under section 143 of the Act, which is similar to the one contained in Article 329 of the Constitution, the same cannot be allowed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (supra). He further submitted that under section 136 read with rule 121, the Election Commission is vested with full power to initiate fresh process of election without cancelling the earlier poll. 31. I do not find any substance in the above submission of Mr. Jha. He further submitted that under section 136 read with rule 121, the Election Commission is vested with full power to initiate fresh process of election without cancelling the earlier poll. 31. I do not find any substance in the above submission of Mr. Jha. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters provided under section 143 of the Act is not at all attracted as the petitioner has neither questioned the validity of the law nor has questioned the election to the Panchayat, which, according to clause (b) of section 143 of the Act, is not permissible except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under the Act. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Election Commissioner has acted arbitrarily in not complying with the direction of this Court given in the earlier writ petition and initiated fresh process, that too, without even taking any decision as per the provision contained in clause Ga of the instruction. I have already held above that the Election Commission is not legally justified in issuing fresh election process in view of the earlier direction of this Court and also in view of the controversy involved which could only be gone into in an election petition filed by the aggrieved party, besides for the reason that the Commission has not taken any specific decision with respect to the Panchayat in question after complying with the rules of natural justice. Moreover, this Court is unable to appreciate as to how the Election Commission proceeded to notify for fresh election for the Panchayat in question when under similar circumstances allowed the voting to be completed with respect to Bishanpur Gram Panchayat. 32. I must note here that on perusal of the records produced, this Court, prima facie, finds it difficult to give much sanctity to the plea taken by the Commission and the photo copy of Form-9 received from the Sarswati Press, particularly in the absence of availability of Form-9 in the record of the District Election Officer under rule 143. The intervenor though has admitted that the list of candidates in Form-9 along with the respective symbols was informed to the candidate, yet he also has not produced the same. Moreover, there appears to be tampering with Form-9 relating to Bishanpur Gram Panchayat. The intervenor though has admitted that the list of candidates in Form-9 along with the respective symbols was informed to the candidate, yet he also has not produced the same. Moreover, there appears to be tampering with Form-9 relating to Bishanpur Gram Panchayat. It is not disputed that "Bunglow" is also one of the symbols provided in Form-9, as approved by the Election Commission, for the election of Mukhiya. 33. However, the question whether an authority has understood the order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such construction is one of the important factors to consider regarding wilful disobedience of the order by him. As the opposite parties have pleaded that they have acted in bona fide understanding of the effect of the earlier order of this Court and that there was no wilful intention on their part to flout of disregard the order/direction of this Court, this Court directs the Election Commission and other concerned authorities to complete the counting and declare the result of the Panchayat in question within one week and report to this Court about the said compliance by filing an affidavit soon after the expiry of the said time, when the matter will be listed for consideration on question of bona fide of the contemnor-opposite parties and action to be taken against them.