Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner filed the writ application to stop counting of votes of Kumkum Panchayat, which was held on 27.5.2006 and for which the counting was scheduled for 16.6.2006. During the pendency of the writ application and in absence of any stay order by this Court respondent no. 7 was elected from the said constituency as a member of the Panchayat Samiti and, therefore, an I.A. No. 5015 of 2007 has also been filed. 3. Petitioner claims himself to be a voter as well as a public spirited person and he is aggrieved because of delimitation exercise of wards which was carried out just before the election which according to him has caused serious prejudice not only to the voters but also the candidates as such. According to him since an illegal delimitation in conflict with the law had been carried out, therefore, this was no election in the eye of law and the remedy available for the petitioner is by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that there has been violation of Section 127 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 4. Learned counsel for the Election Commission as well as the private respondent have appeared and made their submissions on the issue both on the merits as well as a primary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ itself. According to them the present writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that an election petition under Section 139 is the only remedy available in such a matter in view of the bar under Section 138 of the Act. There is nothing to show that any election petition has been filed challenging the said election by any person so aggrieved. It is a proxy litigation which is being carried out by the petitioner under the garb of objection with regard to delimitation of certain wards. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very nature of challenge is such that the same cannot be decided in an election petition because it goes to the root of the matter. But a perusal of Section 139(d)(iv) of the Act shows that this can be one of the issues which can be adjudicated upon in an election dispute as per the statute. 6. But a perusal of Section 139(d)(iv) of the Act shows that this can be one of the issues which can be adjudicated upon in an election dispute as per the statute. 6. Further it has teen submitted that the publication for the alteration of the wards was made way back on 10.5,2005 as is evident from Annexure-7 to the writ application. This is almost one year prior to the election and there is nothing to show that any serious challenge or objection was raised by the petitioner or any candidate at any point of time after the publication for carrying out delimitation of wards. If the respondent authorities have only carried out the follow up exercise in furtherance to the publication then the same cannot be questioned or challenged at this stage by way of a writ application. 7. The Court has perused the relevant provisions including Section 138 of the Act as well as Section 139(d)(iv) and is of the opinion that the objection raised by the Election Commission as well as the private respondent is correct. The remedy to the petitioner or any aggrieved person was by way of an election petition at an appropriate time and this Court, therefore, refuses to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in the given facts and law on the issue. 8. The writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merits.