JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri A.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri D.P. Dhal, learned Counsel for opposite party no 3, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 Shri J.K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Election Commission. 2. This is the second innings of the Petitioner. Earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5468 of 2009 when his nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer of 89 -Athagarh Assembly Constituency on the ground that the authorization that he was se up by a recognized political party, i.e. Forms A and B were not submitted in original with the signature in ink. The nomination was rejected on 06.04.2009. This Court did not interfere with the same as the writ petition was not maintainable. However, liberty was given to the Petitioner to approach the Election Commission of India in view of Article 324 (1) of the Constitution of India whereunder the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all election to parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in the Election Commission keeping in mind the decision of the apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, in which the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble apex Court held that after the notification has been issued by the President, the entire electroral process is in the charge of the Election Commission and the Commission is exclusively responsible for the conduct of the election without reference to any outside agency. There is no limitation in Article 324 (1) from which it can be held that where the law made under Article 327 or the relevant rules made thereunder do not provide for the mechanism of dealing with a certain extraordinary situation, the hands of the Election Commission are tied and it cannot in dependently decide for itself what to do in a matter relating to an election. The Election Commission is competent in an appropriate case to order repoll of an entire constituency where necessary. It will be an exercise of power within the ambit of its functions under Article 3234. The Election Commission is competent in an appropriate case to order repoll of an entire constituency where necessary. It will be an exercise of power within the ambit of its functions under Article 3234. The Petitioner filed a representation before the Election Commission which was disposed of as the Election Commission refused to interfere in the matter in question. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commission, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this Court has jurisdiction to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution as there is no speedy remedy available to the Petitioner and the election process is a long drawn process. 4. In this regard before proceeding further, it is necessary to peruse Article 329 of the Constitution which reads as under: 329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution. (a) the valicity of any law relating to the delimination of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court, (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. 5. In the above regard, the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakhal Constituency, Namakhal AIR 1952 SC 464 has, inter alia, decided the question whether the law of elections in this country contemplates two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded) and another after they have been completed by means of an election. The apex Court held that to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. Under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that is can be used as a ground to call the election in question. Article 329(b) was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be urged. It therefore follows by necessary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329(b) and in setting up a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the Article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal, which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. The Constitution Bench in that case held that the decision of the Madras High Court and seven other High Courts that they have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution to entertain a writ petition regarding improper rejection of nomination papers is a correct view and must be affirmed. 6. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), the Constitution Bench has held that it is undisputed that an election can be challenged only under the provisions of the Act. Indeed Section 80 of the Act provides that" no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of" part VI of the Act. Indeed Section 80 of the Act provides that" no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of" part VI of the Act. We find that all the substantial reliefs which the Appellants seek in the writ application, including the declaration of the election to be void and the declaration of Appellant No. 1 to be duly elected, can be claimed in the election petition. It will be within the power of the High Court, as the election court, to give all appropriate reliefs to do complete justice between the parties. In doing so it will be open to the High Court to pass any ancillary or consequential order to enable it to grant the necessary relief provided under the Act. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Shivaji and Others, relying upon the decision of N.P. Ponnuswami (supra), has laid down that it had always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections were over so that the election proceedings might not be unduly retarded or protracted. Hence even if there was any ground relating to the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Constitution on which the validity of any election process could be questioned, the person interested in questioning the elections has to wait till the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with Section 81 of the Act calling in question the election of the successful candidate within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate but not earlier than the date of election This view has been reaffirmed by the apex Court in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K. M. Hassan Uzzaman; AIR 1985 SC 1233 and in Inderjit Barua and Others Vs. Election Commission of India, . 8. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is the well settled law that in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, no election to either House of Parliament or House of Legislature of a State can be called in question except by an election petition. The word "Election" includes every process of proceedings after issuance of the election notification. The word "Election" includes every process of proceedings after issuance of the election notification. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and also not maintainable. Hence the same is dismissed in limine. Final Result : Dismissed